Labor’s Tax Changes Do Nothing for Cost of Living and Bracket Creep

,

Soaring cost of living, massive mortgage, rent hikes and inflation meant Australian households suffering the fastest income collapse in the world last year. Labor’s tax changes will benefit some Australians, a measly $15 a week to make up for this.

Labor are out of touch.

This legislation will barely make a dent in cost of living and the government admits as much by claiming these tax cuts will make no measurable difference to the amount of money Australians have in their pocket to spend. Meanwhile, they are silent on their secret money maker – bracket creep. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax. This little trick means government has collected an extra $44 billion in taxes from Australians, thanks to inflation over the last decade. Because it hasn’t been fixed, Australians will be paying an extra $38 billion in the next four years alone.

I moved an Amendment that would change the tax rates to keep up with inflation and eliminate bracket creep. If Liberal and Labor are genuine about real tax cuts, they’ll vote for this Amendment and let Australians keep billions of dollars.

One Nation has been talking about the Liberal-Labor government’s secret tax loophole of bracket creep ever since this debate on the Stage 3 Tax Cuts started and we are doing something about it with our proposed amendment to this bill. We need proper tax reform urgently.

Transcript

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Like most of the words Australians hear out of Liberal and Labor mouths, the title of this bill is a false promise. It’s a lie. It’s almost a sick joke from the Labor government to even put the words ‘cost of living’ in this bill. Let’s talk about the cost of living. Compared to what was already legislated, these tax changes are $15 a week different for the average Australian. For many that’s significant because of Labor’s huge cost-of-living increases. In four years, Australians have been slapped with some of the worst declines in economic circumstances in decades internationally. Australian households suffered the fastest income collapse in the world last financial year, under Labor. Inflation has sent Australian wages—real wages—back to a point not seen since 2009. That means that Australian wages have gone nowhere in real terms for 15 years. The average mortgage has gone up $1,210 a month—a month! Australia’s average rent has hit a record $601 a week, up from the August 2022 median of $437 an astounding 37 per cent. Fifty dollars doesn’t get you far at the supermarket anymore. Petrol is now considered a bargain at $1.80. How far we’ve fallen! 

As billions in government coupons and rebates expire, power bills will rise even further. Despite Labor’s promises to cut electricity bills by $275, Australians have never paid more to keep the lights on. We’ve never paid more. We have the highest electricity prices in the world. We used to have the lowest—until Labor and the Greens and teals came along. 

What is the government’s solution to these skyrocketing costs of living? To fix your problems with groceries, your mortgage or rent, power bills and more, the Albanese government is going to give some Australians—some Australians—$15 a week and expect you to bow down and thank them for it. 

Like the governments before it, this Labor government is all spin and no substance. In fact, it’s all theft. They will put a fluffy title on a bill, like they have here: ‘cost of living tax cuts’. Oh, really! In reality, this won’t make a dent in the cost of living most Australians are suffering through. The costs Labor is imposing are far, far higher than the minor changes they’ve made. This bill is a perfect example of how out of touch this Albanese Labor government really is. Their priorities are in the wrong place. They’re more interested in looking good than actually doing good. 

In his speech about this bill, Treasurer Jim Chalmers just couldn’t help himself. He needed to invoke identity politics and explain that these tax cuts were so much better for women. I checked the Taxation Office website, just to make sure nothing had changed, and it hadn’t. Someone might want to let Treasurer Chalmers knows that Australia doesn’t charge different tax rates based on what’s between our legs. There’s no table that says, ‘If you earn $60,000, as a man you’ll pay, say, 32.5c per dollar, and, if you’re a woman, you’ll pay 35 cents.’ That’s probably lucky, because Labor can’t even answer the question: ‘What is a woman?’ If the Treasurer can’t make a speech about tax without invoking gender political correctness, you have to wonder what hope they’ve got. What hope have we got? Here’s a tip for Labor: regardless of what Australians have between our legs, life is tough right now; the economy sucks; and $15 a week will barely make a dent in the extra costs you have imposed in just 18 months. 

Now, I’ll never oppose Australians getting a tax cut. Yet calling these tax changes ‘cost-of-living relief’ is like claiming you’ve fixed a raging bushfire after throwing cup of water on it. 

These tax changes won’t do anything while government policies make Australia’s cost of living even worse—far, far worse. There’s energy. They’re killing agriculture. There’s immigration. They’re hiding per capita recessions. There are house prices and rents. The government response to COVID created the inflation problem that has wrecked Australian households. And Labor was all the way with Prime Minister Morrison. 

The government’s net zero policies are increasing power prices, making it harder for households to keep the lights on and businesses to keep their doors open. That’s a fact. Only this week, the government is discussing putting an extra four per cent tax on clothes, to comply with United Nations/World Economic Forum policies—four per cent on clothes, in addition to the 10 per cent GST on clothes. The government will be putting an emissions tax on vehicles, forcing Australians’ favourite utes off the road and making any other cars far more expensive. That’s from a Labor government. All of the pressures facing Australian households are a result of government policies, and Labor’s response is a measly $15 a week. 

The Liberals do not get a free pass on this. The only reason we’re in this situation is because of the Liberal Party’s gutlessness in parliament. Many will notice that the original tax changes were called ‘the third stage’. All three stages were announced by the Liberal coalition government in 2018. Why, then, was stage 3 left until 1 July 2024 to come into effect? I’ll tell you why: the truth is the Liberals wanted to leave stage 3 as a trap for Labor, who have always been opposed to them. If the Liberals were genuine about stage 3, why didn’t the changes come into effect five years ago? That didn’t happen because the Liberals wanted to play cynical political games and trap Labor. Neither Liberal nor Labor are interested in genuine tax reform; they’d rather play games with it to get a headline—play games with people’s livelihoods, lives and futures. 

The crown of destroying Australia sits on the heads of both the Labor party and the Liberal party. They both have gutless policy on everything in our country, especially tax. They run away from the real issues facing Australians. The Treasurer and the government claim that these tax changes won’t add to inflation—that’s shooting themselves in the foot. If that’s true then the government is admitting these changes won’t do anything. They’re saying it won’t make enough of a difference to the amount of money Australians will have to spend to even be measured. Maybe the government is lying, and these changes will make inflation worse. That would be embarrassing to admit, given Treasurer Chalmers says our No. 1 priority should be ‘to finish the fight against inflation’. Labor appears to have put themselves between a rock and a hard place, a situation all of their own making. Australians have got used to this Labor government speaking out of both sides of their mouth—this tax bill is no different. 

Now, I’ll never oppose tax cuts for Australians. These tax changes, however, are just fiddling around the edges. Instead, we need real tax reform. Real reform is in the amendment I have proposed on sheet 2342. This would index the income tax thresholds to inflation and eliminate bracket creep. This is genuine tax reform. Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by simply doing nothing. As wages increase with inflation, they go into higher tax brackets, you’re paying higher tax rates and no one says a thing. We are going to say something. We’ve been saying something about this ever since this debate started, and we will fix it by putting an amendment in there. 

It’s a stealth tax. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets, while being able to buy only the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax, so they’ll have less money to spend on groceries effectively and less money to spend on disposable income. Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that the government are keep collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit. If the Liberals and Labor want to increase taxes, they should put in a bill or take it to an election and be honest with Australians, rather than quietly rely on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes and ratchet up income tax receipts. 

Bracket creep should’ve been fixed a decade ago. Analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that Australians have had to pay an extra $44 billion over the last decade because of bracket creep. Shh, don’t tell them! Because we didn’t take that action and fix this 10 years ago, over just the next four years bracket creep will mean Australians will pay more than $38 billion extra in taxes. You thought you were getting a tax cut. If the government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won’t cost the budget anything. Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes, and the budget shouldn’t benefit from out-of-control inflation. Here’s how you’re paying twice: firstly, inflation because of an out-of-control government—higher prices; secondly, the higher wages that come with inflation put you into a higher tax bracket—bracket creep, higher taxes. You have less real money overall. Now, I note that the Liberals have made many comments about the scourge of bracket creep. This is your opportunity to fix it once and for all, and I urge all senators to stop the taxation increases-by-stealth and index the tax thresholds—the brackets. 

If Labor need any suggestions on areas of spending to fix it so they don’t have to keep secretly stealing more money from Australians, they can consult One Nation’s extensive work at Senate estimates for a few tips. There are lots of tips in there. We exposed so much: the flawed $65 billion Hunter frigate program they fiddled with and didn’t cancel; the NDIS being on track to cost $100 billion every year; and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud. They are all some good places to start. 

We support this bill. It’s being dishonestly represented by Labor as a tax cut; it’s a tax fiddle. We can change that by passing my amendment to remove bracket creep. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I recommend that, instead of fiddling with the tax system, we fix the tax system. Reform the tax system for the benefit of all Australians, all families, our economy and our grandchildren’s economic future and security. 

I will just make some comments about tax reform, in connection with this bill. The tax system is complex, wastes enormous resources and is destroying economic productivity. Tax is essentially necessary because it’s a cost of government. It has become the cost of unaccountable waste over government needlessly micromanaging and controlling people’s lives and destroying economic initiative, hope and security. That’s what our tax system has become. It’s necessary as a cost of government, but it has now gone overboard. The tax act is immense—thousands of pages, a feast for lawyers and accountants. 

In a highly competitive international market, our resources are being wasted. Instead of our best and brightest accountants helping us to be more competitive in facing our international competitors, companies in Korea, Japan, China, America, Indonesia and Asia—instead of facing them and being more competitive by putting our best people to work, we’ve tied them up in the tax system trying to dodge tax because it’s so damn complex and so inefficient. Jim Killaly, the deputy commissioner who was responsible for international matters and large companies, who was second in charge at the Australian Taxation Office and in charge of large companies and international matters, said twice, in 1996 and 2010, that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax due to the Liberals introducing legislation exempting foreign companies back in 1953. 

The tax act enables companies to use tax tricks such as transfer pricing to eliminate book profits and tax being paid in Australia and take it all overseas. In 1987 the Hawke Labor government introduced a petroleum rent resource tax that effectively exempted the world’s largest tax evader, Chevron, from paying tax. They steal our gas and export it to other countries, and we don’t get much for it at all. The Liberal-Labor party, the uni-party, are working for their global corporate masters. Exempting corporations from paying their fair share of tax means the burden falls on us, the people. To the people in the gallery: you’re paying for these uni-party rorts. 

Aussies are paying far too much tax already. Former Treasurer Joe Hockey said that typical Aussies work from January to June paying tax. Half of the year paying tax, effectively a 50 per cent tax rate—that’s what Joe Hockey said. And then we get to keep the rest from July to December. Industry figures calculate that almost 50 per cent of the price of a house is tax, meaning an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Brisbane accountant Derek Smith said that 50 per cent of the price of a loaf of bread is tax, meaning the effective tax rate is 100 per cent. Seventy per cent of the price of fuel is tax—or it used to be; the price has gone up even higher now. Essentially, workers have to pay double and they’re getting ripped off. They pay income tax, and, with what’s left, they pay taxes on everything they buy. We need tax reform urgently. 

/by

“That’s not my job” Lemmings Driving us Off the Net Zero Cliff

,

No one in government will take responsibility for the net-zero plan going wrong. Mr Parker who heads the Clean Energy Regulator is paid over $630,000 a year, yet he admits that even if catastrophic errors in claims about Net Zero are brought to his attention, he would do nothing about it. No-one on the panel were prepared to answer questions about your right to receive reasonable power bills or to continue to enjoy a standard of living better than a third world country.

Minister McAllister points out that the department is only responsible for the “broad settings” and that other institutions are there to simply follow their tasks under legislation.

Only One Nation is prepared to face up to the UN-WEF Net Zero agenda and pull the plug on the nation killing scam invented by predatory globalists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you for being here. Can I ask whether you take any responsibility for assessing the cost of trying to run the grid on wind and solar? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator, we don’t do that kind of work. Our job, as defined by statute, is to administer various programs in the climate space, but not that one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you do any analysis, measuring or modelling on how much wind and solar actually cost once you include the necessary firming or integration costs, the storage and additional transmission? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your job is just to pursue the legislative targets? That’s your statutory job? 

Mr Parker : That’s broadly right. It is in an unofficial space somewhat broader than that, because we have insight, if you like, into industry trends and what’s going on through our liaison with industry, and we are able to feed those views into the policy process. 

Senator ROBERTS: When you say, ‘trends’ what do you mean? They aren’t cost trends. 

Mr Parker : No. We have some information on costs but, as I said, we don’t model those. The sorts of information which we look at are developments in the markets for the relevant carbon instruments, the quantity of investment taking place and so forth. We have an insight into that from our on-the-ground work. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t raise the alarm bells over whether chasing net zero for the energy grid is practically feasible or how much it’s going to cost to get to 2035 with solar and wind powering everything? 

Mr Parker : No, that’s a policy question; we don’t get into that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t test AEMO’s Integrated System Plan at all—there are so many acronyms aren’t there?—to see if it has any flaws? You don’t analyse GenCost from CSIRO to see if there are any faulty assumptions? 

Mr Parker : We’re familiar with all of those reports, but it’s not our role to critique them, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: As the national regulator for this type of energy, even if it were brought to your attention that there are fundamental flaws in the foundational documents for this whole plan, like the Integrated System Plan or GenCost, you wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything about it. It’s not your responsibility? 

Mr Parker : It’s not our role within our statutory remit to do anything about it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Parker. I only ask, because almost every climate related agency I’ve ask, whether it’s supposedly justifying the mad switch to solar and wind or whether it’s actually implementing the policy says, ‘It’s not our job to consider the big picture.’ I’m not arguing that you’re shirking it—I’m not at all. I’m just confirming that you don’t do it. We could be driving off a cliff here and everyone is saying, ‘It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I just drive the car,’ because you’ve been appointed as the driver. Does that terrify you? 

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you’re now— 

Senator ROBERTS: Does it terrify you, Minister? 

Senator McAllister: You’re now asking the official about his feelings and you’re asking me about my feelings. I can explain to you the policy position of the government, the policy arrangements in the government and the responsibilities. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is responsible for the broad settings in relation to the energy market. They’ve been here this morning, answering questions from senators about the approach they take to policy development for the settings for the energy system. There are other institutions, as you’ve observed, that have either advisory or regulatory roles. The CER is one of them and they’re here and able to answer your questions about the task that they’ve been given under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Parker and your team. Thank you, Chair. 

/by

CASA Has Loose Ends It “Cannot Recall”

,

CASA’s credibility is in free fall.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is meant to be the authority regulating aviation safety and yet senior executives have free and exclusive access to Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge that aren’t available to the public. These exclusive memberships were not listed as gifts or benefits on the register until AFTER I drew attention to them. CASA quietly updated their website with these gift memberships without issuing a clarification.

How is this not a conflict of interest? The behaviour of these senior CASA members is bordering on contemptuous and as the Chair noted during this Estimates session, it’s sloppy.

What else is hidden from the public by Miss Spence and other CASA executives?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s tidy up some loose ends. We’ve got a fresh set of questions coming in May. I asked at the previous estimates whether CASA was aware of all the incidents in relation to Qantas on a list that I circulated. Ms Spence told me that these were all ones that CASA was aware of, yet in the answer to question on notice SQ23003791 CASA clarified it actually wasn’t aware of five of the provided incidents. Can you clarify whether those events were then self-reported or if CASA had to make inquiries to Qantas to initiate those reports? 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I don’t think that was at the last hearings. Was it at the hearing before that you raised those issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: It was October-November 2023. 

Ms Spence: It wasn’t at our last hearings, I don’t think. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the date I’ve got written on the Hansard reference. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I’ll have to take that on notice. I don’t have the information in front of me. Apologies. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, presumably, the answer, presumably from CASA, says that four of the five incidents—they say in brackets afterwards, ‘this event has now been reported’. So at the time it wasn’t. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I genuinely don’t have that document in front of me so I can’t— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m telling you what the document says. 

Ms Spence: I know. And it’s very difficult for me not having it in front of me to be able to explain what the context was. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to make a copy of this? 

Mr Marcelja: Sorry, I’m just looking for it as well. 

Ms Spence: I know the document you’re talking about, but I genuinely thought it was— 

Mr Marcelja: A bit further back. 

Ms Spence: My recollection was that you raised a list, and we said we thought most of them would have been covered. The reason we took it on notice was to test which ones we were aware of and which ones we weren’t aware of. And the ones that— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll remind you that I asked you if you’d seen these incidents on the document. Without looking at the document, you said, ‘No, these are not on the document.’ 

Ms Spence: I doubt very much— 

Senator ROBERTS: Then I said, ‘Would you please look at the document before answering?’ How can you have any credibility with me? 

Ms Spence: Obviously I don’t. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, you don’t. You don’t have a lot of credibility with many pilots either. 

Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I just genuinely don’t. I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’. 

Senator ROBERTS: You also told me that the frequency of incidents on the list that I gave you, before you’d seen it, was not out of the ordinary. If some of the incidents weren’t reported to you then it’s hard for you to say that there isn’t an increase in frequency, correct? 

Ms Spence: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you look at the last one there, the October 2022 Perth-Sydney incident, it remained unreported. What is the status of your investigations on this incident? 

Ms Spence: We don’t investigate. The ATSB investigates. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t chase it up with Qantas? 

Ms Spence: As I said, I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’ and what we did, but at the end of the day we do not do accident or incident investigations. Unidentified speaker: If I could— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask the questions here. That might be the question you’d like me to ask. 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you inquired about that incident? 

Ms Spence: I just said I’d take that on notice. I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. Do you believe that senior leadership of the agency that is meant to be regulating aviation—that’s your agency—having access to the exclusive Qantas Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge creates a conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even as a potential perceived conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: In the May 2022 Senate estimates your evidence was that all gifts and benefits were listed on your website under the gifts and benefits register. That wasn’t true, was it? 

Ms Spence: I thought that they all were on the list. I haven’t deliberately misled the committee. If something wasn’t included, I apologise. But everything is certainly on the register now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Now? 

Ms Spence: And has been for some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you put it on the register, that means you think it was a gift. But you told me it wasn’t a gift. 

Mr Marcelja: We were pretty clear in our written response that those memberships predated people joining CASA. We clarified that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. That’s clarified in your opinion, but it doesn’t clarify it so far as the Public Service Association is concerned. Senior members of the aviation regulator had been given access to exclusive airline clubs that aren’t available to the public, and this was kept a secret from Australians. Yet you maintain that this doesn’t create even a potential conflict of interest. 

Ms Spence: I don’t accept the premise that it was kept a secret. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one too. This explanation from the Australian Public Service Commission is very important: “… Public confidence in APS agencies and the APS more broadly can be damaged when gifts and benefits that create a conflict of interest are accepted or not properly declared. The appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to public confidence in public administration as a conflict which gives rise to a concern based on objective facts”. Having gifted access to exclusive aviation lounges is obviously a conflict of interest when you are the aviation regulator—the aviation regulator. 

Ms Spence: No, we’re the aviation safety regulator. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is regardless of whether the benefit predates the official’s employment, and this was not declared. 

Ms Spence: I genuinely don’t recall us not being on the register—of me having Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond lounge membership. When I was in the department and first received those invitations to join those, it’s always been something that I’ve declared in any of my potential conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding that, I genuinely don’t believe it creates a conflict of interest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue. It’s very concerning to me that you try to tell this committee that all benefits were declared on the gift register at a time they clearly were not. You made no mention of the fact that you had updated the register with these gifts— 

Mr Marcelja: Senator, we— 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja, I’m trying to talk! 

Ms Spence: Just— 

Senator ROBERTS: You just quietly updated the webpage and tried to act like those things had been there properly for the entire time, and that’s not the case, is it? The gifts weren’t on the register at the time you gave evidence to this committee that they were. Ms Spence: Senator, I’ll have to take that on notice. I genuinely thought that they were always on the register. If they weren’t, they’re certainly on there now and it has never been a secret that I’ve had those lounge memberships. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, it seems that it’s contemptuous of this committee for you to try and just quietly update this information in the secretive manner that you have. Why not alert the committee that the previous evidence was incorrect and issue a clarification, which is what most honest public servants do? 

Ms Spence: As we said in our response to your question, nothing was declared on the CASA gifts and benefits register as no lounge access had actually been provided to CASA executives or board members as a result of their roles in CASA. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a furphy, Ms Spence! They have done— 

Ms Spence: It’s not a furphy, Senator! 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re making out that they had them before they joined CASA. 

Ms Spence: They did—I did. 

Senator ROBERTS: They still have them— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: and they weren’t declared. Then, when you updated it to declare them, you didn’t advise the committee. You just did it quietly. 

Ms Spence: I’m genuinely sorry that you feel that I’ve misled the committee— 

Senator ROBERTS: It isn’t my feelings that matter! It’s the facts that matter— 

Ms Spence: Well, I apologise to the committee unreservedly, but there was never any intention to mislead. As I said, the issue, as far as I can recall, was because you list things as they’re provided to you, and because they were already in the possession of myself and some of our board members prior to them actually being on the board they must not have been listed originally. They’re on there now, and I have nothing else I can say. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, does this— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my last question. This brings much of the evidence that you’ve given to this committee into question, Ms Spence, if this is how you deal with answers that you later find are incorrect. We wouldn’t even know this unless someone had trawled back through the internet archives. You have apologised; is there anything else you need to apologise for in our exchanges? 

Ms Spence: No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see you as a credible witness with your evidence, Ms Spence. 

CHAIR: What I might do, Senator Roberts, due to the hour, is this. I have kept saying all day that we have that report about behaviour—you know what it is—and you have made your point. Ms Spence, it is sloppy— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

CHAIR: Let’s get over it. The behaviour of politicians in this building over the last few years is pretty questionable too—but anyway! Senator Roberts, do you have further— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have finished my questions, thank you, Chair. 

/by

The Government’s Health Department Hides from a Royal Commission into COVID

,

In January, the Senate held a committee inquiry into appropriate Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission into COVID. This is the Royal Commission the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign, which Senator Gallagher also promised. Instead the Prime Minister called a review of the government’s response, which excludes state and territory responses.

Many have slammed the Prime Minister’s COVID review panel as a “toothless tiger” and support a Royal Commission instead. Doctors, unions, human rights lawyers, vaccine injured, and Royal Commission experts were among the witnesses who provided submissions and gave evidence at the Senate inquiry tasked with proposing Terms of Reference for a future COVID Royal Commission.

Why did the Government Health Department not partake in this inquiry? Could it be to avoid scrutiny from the Committee that would result from making a submission? Judge for yourself.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The department and its agencies did not make a submission to the Senate inquiry into appropriate terms of reference for a possible future royal commission into COVID. I would have thought, Minister, that the department that ran our COVID response would be the first to put forward its position on the matter. Why the silence? Is the department hiding from committee scrutiny? 

Senator McCarthy: We do have an inquiry underway—an independent one—looking into COVID, so I reject outright your question. 

/by

Pharma Exclusivity in TGA Processes a Barrier to Natural Products

,

Before a drug or natural therapy can be approved by the “regulator” — the TGA — it must have a sponsor whose job is to pay the license fee, fill out the paperwork, and prepare safety and efficacy reports. These can be overseas because we no longer require local trials for new drugs. Drug companies are happy to develop new drugs and sponsor the applications because they have 25 years to get their money back from the patent which gives them exclusive rights to the product’s profits. After that, a product can be ‘generic’ or off-patent and any pharma company can make it.

Natural products such as cannabis and Aboriginal medicine from native plants cannot be patented which means nobody can afford to act as a sponsor. The result is the only thing doctors can prescribe are patented or ‘generic’ pharmaceutical drugs. I asked why there is not an office of the consumer advocate who can sponsor natural therapies like Cannabis and Albicidin (a natural antibiotic). Instead, the TGA chose to speak about their program to re-purpose pharmaceutical drugs that have already been approved for different uses. This answer really shows the pharmaceutical mindset our health administrators have.

The legislation needs to be changed to give natural products a path to market.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That leads to another point. It opens it up from this one. We have a system that says that, unless a product has a sponsor, it will never be approved. This isn’t the TGA system. They don’t write policy. This is a department and minister problem. There are multiple studies on the efficacy of medicinal cannabis for some conditions, and yet they’re not listed in schedule 4. There are 150 substances in Aboriginal medicine, yet only two have been commercialised, because natural products, even with postprocessing, can’t be approved by your system, because, without a patent, nobody will sponsor the product. Minister, why is there not a public advocate within the department that can bring natural remedies to the people under poison schedules 2, 3, 4 under the PBS where appropriate? 

Senator McCarthy: I will refer to the department. 

Prof. Lawler : As you highlighted and as we’ve discussed previously, the act does require a sponsor to bring medicines for evaluation. There are a number of reasons for this, and not least among them is the fact that, once a medicine is listed on the Register of Therapeutic Goods, there is a need for postmarket surveillance, pharmacovigilance, and safety and quality assurance, so it’s obviously very important that there be a point of accountability for these medicines. We are undertaking some work in terms of a repurposing initiative, and I will ask Mr Henderson to speak to that. It is about ways in which some of the medicines that are currently on the market can be used in other ways and how that might extend beyond the current sponsorship arrangements. 

Mr Henderson : As part of the last budget, the government approved funding of roughly $10 million over four years for the TGA to initiate a repurposing program for medicines. The context or the objective of that program is to incentivise sponsors—and non-pharmaceutical sponsors as part of that as well—to come forward with submissions to the TGA for medicines that are predominantly used off label. They are registered on the ARTG, the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, but for indications for which it may not have been feasible for low-population groups or niche population groups to have had a sponsor come forward in the past, so we’re looking to implement a program where we incentivise through waiving fees associated with the regulatory fees and charges as well as through working closely with our colleagues in the reimbursement space in relation to processes through the PBAC, pharmaceutical benefits and fee waivers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So there may be some hope. 

/by

Media Release: ‘Bracket Creep’ Fix Proposed for Stage 3 Tax Changes

,

The Federal opposition has been urged to follow through on calls for real tax reform to stop bracket creep and vote for a One Nation amendment to Labor’s Stage 3 tax changes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts’ amendment would index all tax thresholds to adjust for inflation, saving Australians billions of dollars in extra taxes over the coming years.

Senator Roberts said: ‘It’s time to stop fiddling around the edges and implement genuine tax reform.

‘Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by doing nothing.

‘As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things due to inflation yet will be paying more tax.

‘Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that government is happy to keep collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit.

‘If Liberal and Labor want to increase taxes, they should put it in a Bill or take it to an election and be honest with Australians rather than quietly relying on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes.

‘If the Government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won’t cost the budget anything.

‘Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes and the budget shouldn’t actually benefit from out of control inflation.

‘If Labor needs any suggestions on areas of spending to fix so they don’t have to keep secretly stealing more money from Australians they can consult One Nation’s extensive work at Senate Estimates for some tips.

‘The flawed $65 billion Hunter Frigate program, the NDIS on track to cost $100 billion a year and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud are all some good places to start.’

Media-ReleaseDownload
/by

Liberal and Labor Dance to Taylor Swift While Oz Suffers

Hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless with more added every day.

The Defence Force is the most unprepared to defend Australia it’s been in 50 years.

Inflation has cancelled out all of the wage growth of the last ten years.

Let’s have a look at what Liberal and Labor are doing about it.

/by

“Trust Me, I’m Not from the Government”

,

Trust in the Government has slumped since COVID. This decline in confidence is impacting even independent statutory bodies and authorities that would have once relied on their government connection to lend them credibility.

Following a ‘Sentiments Survey’ among members of the public and licence holders, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has now applied to remove the Australian Government coat-of-arms and other government ‘branding’ from their public facing material including the clothing they wear to Field Days. They’re essentially having to rebrand to rebuild trust — “rebuilding trust” seems to be the theme for 2024.

The Australian public, including water licence holders, perceive a lack of independence and therefore they mistrust the MDBA. On one hand, it’s becoming a challenge for the MDBA to engage with the public over perceptions they’re from the government, which can’t be trusted, yet on the other hand, the MDBA still makes use of the Government coat-of-arms on published reports to provide a sense of authority when its needed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It is good to see you, Mr Grant. 

Mr Grant: You too, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions about the sentiment survey. Who is surveyed, how many people are surveyed and how are they selected? 

Mr Grant: I don’t have those exact figures before me in my notes, but we are happy to provide them to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: But could you talk about them now—not the exact numbers; we will get those on notice. Perhaps you could talk about how you make sure this survey is accurate and representative. 

Mr Blacker: It is critically important that the design of that survey has a method which makes sure that we capture all of the various sentiments at different locations. We look at geographic representation, at volume and at the ability to show a ‘representative’. So there is the number of people to whom we speak and the different categories of how we speak to them—whether face to face, in focus groups, online or via telephone. We use a range of different methods. We break that down to capture all of the different aspects across the basin geographically that are going to represent that. Then we break down the results accordingly. 

Senator ROBERTS: So that selection process is done internally. 

Mr Grant: It is conducted by the contracted survey company ORIMA. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you specify the broad range of people, and then they will do the selection? 

Mr Blacker: They do the selection and make sure that it is statistically valid and that the results are reliable. 

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could comment on the decrease in perceptions of independence and who they are referring to as being not as independent; is that you? 

Mr Grant: The public broadly, as well as water licenceholders. 

Senator ROBERTS: So the public generally perceive a decrease in independence? 

Mr Grant: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that of your office? 

Mr Grant: Yes, it is more their perception of our independence. An example that came out of the survey was that with any material that says ‘the Hon. Troy Grant’ they think I am a government representative. So we are removing that from our publications. On any of our promotional material we have the Inspector-General logo. Because we are funded by the Australian government, the Australian government coat of arms sits on our shirt. So when we go to a field day like AgQuip and engage with people, the sentiment is: ‘I am not talking to you; you’re just another mob from the government.’ We have that conversation, explaining that we are independent, and then they engage thoroughly. For that type of thing, we have inquired and sought approval to not have that on our clothing when we are at field days, et cetera. But there is a flipside to that. Being the body we are, the reports we produce and publish have the coat of arms on them because it gives them that authority figure. So there are two parts to the sentiment in that regard. 

CHAIR: That would make it hard to manage. On the one hand it is an upside, and on the other hand it is not. 

Mr Grant: We consider ourselves to be the ‘little engine that could’, so we overcome any challenges. 

Mr Blacker: We break the ‘who’ down by groups so that we can see the different types of things people are telling us. We look at community as a broad, we look at water licenceholders and we look at First Nations. We break the results down by category. Each one of those, again, is built to be statistically valid through the methodology. 

Senator ROBERTS: The comment about independence would indicate to me that, if they perceive that you are from the government and they are a bit wary, there is not so much trust for the government involved in the Murray-Darling Basin. 

Mr Grant: There is a general sentiment of distrust of all governments out there, from what we are hearing. 

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t talking about the Albanese government; I meant the federal government. 

CHAIR: Any government. 

Mr Grant: My answer is that all governments are perceived that way. 

CHAIR: Like all politicians. 

/by

Australia’s Imported Crime Wave

,

In light of the crime wave sweeping our nation, I asked the Department of Home Affairs what they’re doing to ensure Australian’s security and to make sure we are not continuing to import violence and terror into Australia.

As it turns out, those illegal immigrants released included murderers, rapists and child sex offenders and the government chose not to say where in the community these persons were living. Of the 149 detainees released, 24 have already re-offended.

The Department did not provide any information that would diminish concerns about safety in the community, other than to say they were being monitored (not very well).

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. I’m going to ask questions in Outcome 3 about the High Court decision that resulted in terrorists being released.

CHAIR: We’re in Outcome 2.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. We’re in Outcome 2. The Queensland government’s casual, relaxed approach to crime has people worried. Last week we had a series of violent crimes by African immigrants, including the horrendous stabbing and killing of a grandmother in a car theft near Brisbane in broad daylight last week while she was out shopping with her six-year-old granddaughter. These incidents are spreading further fear in the community of activities of violent immigrants who have not been assimilated into the Australian notions and culture of nonviolence. Given the current record immigration levels, what actions are being taken by Home Affairs to ensure the security of Australians from imported risks of violence and terror?

Mr Willard: I might make a few comments in response. Anyone who applies for a visa from outside Australia is subject to the same criteria for the granting of that visa, regardless of their nationality. It involves assessments of their character, security, health and a range of other items. So that’s the first threshold in terms of visa consideration. I am aware of the tragic incident, which received a lot of media reporting. I don’t want to go into the details of the incident, but in the normal course of events, if someone were a visa holder, there might be consideration given to cancelling a visa if someone was subsequently convicted of an offence. In respect of this particular matter, it remains a criminal matter for the courts. I would make the point, though, that it doesn’t necessarily follow that the people involved were immigrants. From our initial considerations, the people involved were not visa holders.

Senator ROBERTS: I have two questions from that. The first is that you and I are both public servants, and what I’m doing is relaying some of my constituents’ fears. I’m serving my constituents, and many constituents in Queensland are afraid of the crime wave that’s taking over our state. How many people have had their visas revoked and been deported in the last 10 years?

Mr Willard: That actually sits in outcome 3. I can try to provide some information on visa cancellations at that time.

Senator ROBERTS: Visa cancellations due to criminal activities?

Mr Willard: That’s an item in Outcome 3, when we look at visa compliance.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll be back.

/by

The $500 Million Anti Tobacco Industry That Doesn’t Want to Quit

I asked questions on the latest Public Health Tobacco Bill and the $511 million the government wants to spend going forward towards a range of measures calculated to help reduce smoking and vaping. I want to know what data the government has to demonstrate these measures work or whether this is an industry that has settled into existence and refuses to budge.

Although One Nation does acknowledge and support the work involved in bringing this Bill to regulate smoking together from many different bills, my questions go to the actual measures being promoted in this Bill and its agenda. The government seems to be adopting a counterproductive strategy that undermines health and trust.

Australia is the most expensive place to buy a pack of cigarettes in the world, which seems to have been the one constant factor to drive down smoking.

I want to know what the results of the quit campaigns and the price increases on tobacco really amount to in light of this half a billion dollars in annual public expenditure? And I want to know why this Government is denying the effectiveness of vaping as a means of quitting smoking.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, at the outset, let me say that One Nation does support the hard work that’s been done to bring this together from many different bills, regulating smoking into one piece of legislation, and I compliment those who have produced a bill that includes the previous coalition government that started the work, yet that only extends to consolidating existing governance. Today my questions go to the actual measures being promoted in this bill. In my opinion we need to pick up the health agenda. I need to understand why the government is adopting a counterproductive strategy that undermines health and trust. My questions go to four topics—quitting smoking, the results of quitting-smoking campaigns, price increases on tobacco and vaping. First question, Minister: the previous Labor government introduced measures that were designed to reduce smoking. These were putting scary photos on cigarette packs, reducing pack sizes, banning advertising and sponsorship and using plain packaging. Minister, what data do you have to support the idea these measures actually reduce smoking rates and that amplifying those measures will cause more people to quit smoking faster? 

Senator McCARTHY : Thank you, Senator ROBERTS, for your question. The measures in the bill do aim to encourage people to give up smoking and to discourage people from taking up smoking in the first place— I think that’s really important to remind the Senate about. These measures are just one part of the comprehensive, evidence based approach to tobacco control in Australia, which includes the 2023-24 budget commitments to support education campaigns, improve cessation support and extend the successful Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. 

Senator ROBERTS : I asked for the data. You didn’t give me any. You said though, as quite often happens in this House, your policy is ‘evidence based’. So let me ask a second question which relates to the effect of selective perception in respect of the use of scary photos to dissuade smoking. For clarity, selective perception is defined as: the process by which we focus our attention on certain stimuli while ignoring stimuli that … contradicts our values and expectations. According to selective perception theory, we consciously and unconsciously filter out information. Minister, when scary photos were proposed there was a strong academic argument against their use on the basis that people would filter them out. Here we are, ten years on, promoting an extended use of scary photos—that’s basically what your bill does. Minister, what work has the department done to prove scary photos are not being filtered out? Can you prove scary photos are not useless? I would like some data. 

Senator McCARTHY : Did you say: ‘scary photos are not useless’? Was that the last bit of your question? 

Senator ROBERTS : I said the scary photos have not been productive so far in accelerating any quitting smoking campaign. 

Senator McCARTHY : Thank you, Senator. I could use personal anecdotal responses—but I won’t—especially coming from our First Nations communities, about the impact that it has had on family members and others who have stopped smoking as a result of what they’ve seen. The impact of the bill will be evaluated in line with the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy. Evaluation measures are set out in the impact analysis prepared for this bill and will seek to measure declines in overall consumption. Consideration of tobacco prevalence data—and I know you’re always interested in data—is data from the National Health Survey, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey and the Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey. I’m just reinforcing some of the data that I know that you’re interested in. Other available sources may also be considered such as the data from Customs and the Australian Bureau of Statistics’s state and territory government smoking cessation surveys conducted by or for public health experts. 

Senator ROBERTS : Thank you, Minister. You said, ‘seek to measure,’ implying in future. I asked for the past data on which this is based—current data. A literature review conducted by my staff has found many papers show a link between scary images and smokers being more scared. So far, so good. They find that nonsmokers react to the images as expected while smokers filter the message, reducing the fear factor in whole or in part. This proves that selective perception is at least in play if not undermining the whole concept of scary pictures. In other words, smokers don’t see the scariness in the scary pictures. None of these studies show a direct causation between scary photos and smoking reduction. Minister, is this measure something that sounds good in theory but actually doesn’t work in practice? Or hasn’t anyone bothered to do the work to prove that it works? 

Senator Pratt: I seek the call and say in answer to Senator ROBERTS that— 

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Grogan): Thank you, Senator Pratt. Please resume your seat. Minister? 

Senator McCARTHY : Senator ROBERTS, these are probably some of the best questions I’ve had all day on this bill, so thank you for your interest in that. Scary photos: I think this is really important, because it comes to the heart of what this piece of legislation is all about—plain packaging, and the concerns that have been raised throughout the Senate inquiry. Perhaps I could refer to the previous answer, where I talked about the Australian Bureau of Stats as one of the areas that we go to for data. With scary photos, young people were less likely to be current daily smokers, at a rate of 7.1 per cent. Then in 2011-12 it was 16.5 per cent. Plain packaging came in in 2012, so we are conscious that there is strong correlation there. 

Senator ROBERTS : Let’s get to the meat of the question, now that I understand that there is little data to back it up. The committee report makes this statement: ‘According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 11 per cent of Australians smoked tobacco daily in 2019, which is a decrease from 12.2 per cent in 2016.’ This the same claim the minister made in his second reading speech. However, the 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that the figure for ‘smokes every day’ was 12.8 per cent, not 11 per cent— no drop. That data further shows that the figure for people who consider themselves to be a current smoker is 14.7 per cent. This is an increase in smokers, not a decrease. The minister may be using the 2020-021 survey, which does show that figure. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, from which you sourced a minute ago, has a qualification on the 2020-21 data which reads: ‘The National Health Survey 2020-21 was collected online during the COVID-19 pandemic’—their word, not mine—’and is a break in time series. Data can’t be compared to previous years.’ I’m concerned that this bill uses invalid data to justify an expansion of measures introduced by Labor in 2012. The messaging around this bill has a misinformation feel to it. Minister, is the actual rate of smoking in Australia 11 per cent or 12.8 per cent? 

Senator McCARTHY : As I said in my summing-up speech today, when the Hon. Nicola Roxon introduced plain packaging, around 16 per cent of Australians smoked, and today that rate is down to just under 11 per cent. 

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, my data is contained in a paper that was last updated in June 2023 by the Cancer Council of Victoria and is their dataset titled, ‘Tobacco in Australia: facts and issues’. The dataset is funded by the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care; this is your data. I’ll keep talking about your data out of this data source, and hopefully someone over there has it to hand. One would have thought it useful in the committee stage of a bill about tobacco in Australia. Moving on to graph 1.3.1, this graph shows a perfect exponential decay in the rate of smoking every day, suggesting that the quit rate is slowing. What this data calls for is new ideas, not more of the same ideas that are currently not the reason for the reduction in smoking. Minister, what else have you got? What other ideas does your department have to reduce smoking rates? And why are they not in this opus of a bill? Clearly scary photos are not working. The quit rate is decelerating, decreasing. 

Senator McCARTHY : I believe I’ve answered the questions. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, can I now refer you to graph 1.3.7, which shows the prevalence of current smoking in Australia, the United States, England, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. This graph shows that a steady—not accelerating—reduction in smoking rates has occurred not only in Australia but in other Commonwealth countries and at about the same rate. Minister, is this more proof that scary pictures are a stunt, and something else is behind the reduction in smoking? 

Senator McCARTHY : I refer to my previous response. 

Senator ROBERTS : Let’s change topic, then. In review, the government has no idea what works and what doesn’t and has no new ideas—just more of the same, which, of course, keeps public servants and non-government organisations in taxpayer-funded jobs for another year. Minister, you have no new ideas. It’s more of the same failed policy approaches. How much does this cost taxpayers? How much is spent on the antismoking industry in Australia every year? 

Senator McCARTHY : I totally reject the senator’s accusations that we have no new ideas, when we are trying to improve the lives of Australians in this country, especially youth—children. We see this in our schools, Senator. So please do not come in here and say we have no new ideas. We know from the cancer rate inthis country that smoking is the leading cause of disease. We know that lung cancer is the lead cancer for that. These laws, let me remind the Senate, are about plain packaging. They’re about ensuring the safety of our young children— our young Australians—so that they do not get caught up in a world of smoking tobacco, which is quite easy to get caught up in. We have to be sure through this legislation that plain packaging makes a very real difference to the lives of our fellow Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS : Thank you, Minister. I happen to like you and respect you, but your use of emotion and young children does not cut it. This is my point. The government has committed $511 million over the forward estimates and $101 million ongoing towards a range of measures calculated to help reduce smoking and vaping. These consist of $264 million over four years and up to $101 million per year, ongoing, to establish and maintain a national lung cancer screening program, through which at-risk Australians will be able to get a lung scan every two years. There will be $141 million over four years to expand the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program to include tackling vaping. There will be $63 million over four years for national public health campaigns to discourage people from smoking and vaping, including additional funding provisioned in the contingency reserve for a targeted youth campaign. There will be $30 million over four years to increase and enhance smoking and vaping cessation support. And there will be $13 million over four years for legislative and regulatory reform, as well as testing tobacco products for prohibited ingredients and increasing inspections of manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers of tobacco and vaping products. Wow! That’s an industry—$500 million over the forward estimates, or half a billion dollars. It’s an industry, and it’s being protected by worthless measures like the ones this bill is proposing. Thousands of bureaucrats, nongovernment organisations, not-for-profits and miscellaneous opportunists are kept in a job by the size of government’s spending. This will do nothing to reduce smoking. We’ve already seen the data from your own department, which says it’s just decelerating at a steady rate. It’s not accelerating. It’s just decreasing at a steady rate—the same as in countries overseas. Will this bill guarantee all these other measures? Will it be funded for another four years, despite doing nothing to reduce smoking? Was this bill designed in the knowledge that it would keep the antismoking industry in work for another four years? 

Senator McCARTHY : I totally reject, from the outset, your accusation that this will not do anything to assist our fellow Australians. The fact that we are putting $253.8 million into a new national lung cancer screening program should say something in this debate, shouldn’t it, Senator? And the fact that we’re putting $238.5 million into supporting the Aboriginal and community controlled health sector is not, I would say, a worthless approach and initiative in trying to decrease the rates of cancer and smoking among First Nations people in this country. I totally reject your allegation. 

Senator ROBERTS : An emotional argument does not take the place of data. I have never had a cigarette in my lips—never. My children have never had cigarettes either. Let’s move to what really drives decreases. The excise on tobacco products has been steadily increasing every year, coinciding with the reduction in smoking rates. Senator Canavan talked about it. Turkiye, which I mentioned before, has the highest smoking rate in the developed world. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes costs US$1.62. That’s for a whole pack of 20, not for a cigarette. In Australia the same pack is $25.88 on a best-price comparison basis. The next dearest country for smoking is the United Kingdom, where that same pack costs $15.83. We are more than 50 per cent dearer for cigarettes than any other developed country, and the price has been going up steadily in proportion to the reduction in smoking rates. Minister, isn’t it true that the real reason smoking rates are falling is that they get dearer every year, and the real reason that the number of people giving smoking away is decreasing slowly is that those smokers who are left can afford it more? 

Senator McCARTHY : I’d just remind the Senate and the senator that this is a public health policy and we are talking about plain packaging. 

Senator ROBERTS : I’m talking about the industry that the bill will feed and continue to feed. Minister, I note that the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech both try to make the point that Australia is falling behind other nations. Actually, amongst developed nations Turkiye has the highest smoking rate: 41 per cent amongst males. Australia, with 12 per cent, is 29th. Only eight nations have a lower smoking rate than we do. Only two—Iceland, at eight per cent; and Norway, at six per cent—are significantly better. Clearly, the contention that Australia is falling behind the world is outright misinformation. We are close to leading the world. For clarity, we are close to leading the world because we have priced cigarettes into the stratosphere, not because of scary pictures on boxes or the other Roxon measures. Minister, is this legislation just more of the same to keep the Labor aligned antismoking industry going while at the same time allowing your government to go to the electors and pretend to have done something about smoking? Is this why you exempted yourselves from your own misinformation bill? 

Senator McCARTHY : In 2011, under Nicola Roxon, we did lead the world with the reforms that went through both his house and the other house. For the past nine years we’ve needed more work done, and that’s why we’re bringing in this next critical step in the fight against tobacco and nicotine addiction. I urge the senator and the Senate to remember that this is why we’re here. This legislation is about plain packaging, so that we can once again be world leaders in the way that we conduct ourselves in terms of this public health policy. 

/by