DOCUMENTS

2017-09-06 45 1 4 Senate 0 0

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 6435 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6435 COMMITTEES 6435 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 6435 Meeting 6435 09:31 The PRESIDENT e5v Does anyone wish to have the question put on that proposal? There being none, we will proceed. BUSINESS 6435 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 6435 (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:31): Senator FIFIELD D2I At the request of Senator McGrath, I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Question agreed to. BILLS 6435 BILLS Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017 6435

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6435 09:32 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 contains two main changes to the act. The first change is an administrative one. It allows the government's agency to use Efic expertise on the basis of a fee-for-service arrangement. This is not controversial and the opposition supports it. The second makes it easier for Efic to lend money to companies wanting to expand their offshore operations. Ideally, this would allow Australian companies to take advantage of trading opportunities, therefore benefiting the Australian economy. However, an earlier version of this bill would have also made it easier for Efic to lend money to a company wanting to relocate its manufacturing operations offshore or to set up a call centre overseas. I can assure you, given my recent experience with Telstra's call centres in the Philippines and in India, no-one could possibly want to have that happen. It was truly an appalling experience to see how those facilities, which were moved from Australia to the Philippines and India, have left an appalling level of service for Australian customers of Telstra. I'm glad to see the government moved amendments in the other place that reduced that risk. I see the government has indicated it will accept further amendments, which the Labor Party will be proposing, to further reduce that risk. Efic's internal policy stipulates that any loan that a corporation provides must not result in a net loss of jobs in Australia. Labor does not believe this in itself is a sufficient safeguard. We believe that taxes paid by Australians should be used for the benefit of Australians. It's a fundamental Labor value that Australian jobs should be put first, and that's why we moved to refer this bill to a committee of inquiry. It was necessary to check whether the changes in Efic's role would have had unintended damaging consequences. The committee heard evidence from a range of community groups that share Labor's concerns about this bill. In its submission, for instance, the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network said: It is a reasonable and in fact modest requirement that firms receiving support from Efic actually produce goods and/or services in Australia and employ Australians … In the absence of such a requirement, there would be no incentive for firms receiving Efic loans to have any Australian content. This would lead to the perverse situation of an Australian government institution being able to provide support for firms providing no employment in Australia. It said: The removal of local content requirements from the legislation would enable firms based in Australia but providing no local employment to have access to Efic support. It would provide no incentive for firms to continue to conduct operations in Australia and provide local employment. The Australia Institute commented: While the change to specifically recognise service exports may be desirable, the current proposed amendment seems to remove any focus on products that are produced in Australia. The effect of this could be the further offshoring of Australian manufacturing. For example, a garment company based in Australia could move all production offshore, but still be eligible for Efic's services. This has the potential to not only deprive finance to companies that produce in Australia, but also to give advantage to their competition in other countries. The Australian Council of Trade Unions submission declared: It is in the national interest that companies which receive government loans are required to use that money in a way which benefits Australian employment. The removal of these provisions will be yet another blow to the Australian manufacturing and services sectors. It could potentially lead to jobs being offshored. So we see those various submissions producing comments on the same theme. They gave a warning which I think was justified and should have been heeded, and that's why Labor did not accept the recommendations of the government majority on the committee that the bill should be passed without amendment. We acknowledged that when the bill was considered in the House of Representatives, and we are moving amendments that go some way towards allaying the concerns. The most important of these amendments stipulates that an applicant for a loan or guarantee: … must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business or a related business during the term of the loan. Nonetheless Labor believes that this is insufficient, so we are moving two further amendments, and we're pleased that the government has indicated that it's prepared to accept those amendments. I understand, Minister, that that remains the case. These amendments provide that, at the completion of any loan or guarantee that it is to be used for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia, the applicant must provide Efic with a certification stating whether a net job increase occurred as a result of Efic's financing and that this information must be publicly released by Efic. Further, for businesses with a turnover of more than $150 million in a financial year, the company must certify that any loan or guarantee to be used for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia will not be used to offshore substantial parts of the business. These amendments will allow closer scrutiny of the use of taxpayers' money for direct foreign investment. This will help ensure that Efic's finance will result in net job growth in Australia. These are outcomes that I think are positive. They reflect Labor's resolve to put Australian firms and their workers first. Far too often the Abbott-Turnbull government has done nothing while Australian jobs have been sent offshore. On this occasion we thank the government for its willingness to negotiate around these amendments, and it's a much better bill as a result than it was when it was first introduced. We hope that this government will continue to be willing to agree to measures that actually reduce the risks of jobs being lost in this country. 09:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017 before us today. The Greens have significant concerns with this bill and believe the government missed an important opportunity to reform and progress meaningful reform to Efic, reform that we know is very much needed, before we expand the powers of this particular body. Chief among our concerns is the fact that Efic already has a very poor record in assessing the impacts of its investments and has a very poor record of being transparent with the parliament and with the Australian people—the taxpayers that fund these operations. Yet, despite this history, the first amendment of this bill expands Efic's powers. According to the explanatory memorandum: The policy objective of the first amendment is to allow Efic to offer its specialist financial capabilities in the operation and administration of Commonwealth financing programs, where there is no connection to exports. Expertise, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. When you see the very dark, opaque way that Efic has been operating, you have to wonder what expertise indeed we are talking about. Instead, we need to strengthen the accountability practices of Efic before we consider and contemplate expanding its powers. Efic must get its own house in order before it starts telling other government agencies what to do and how to do it. Efic has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to conduct proper due diligence, evidenced by human rights and environmental violations at Efic sponsored projects overseas. One of those violations is in Efic's work in PNG, one of the most illustrative examples of Efic's poor decision making and lack of transparency—namely, in support of the ExxonMobil led PNG LNG project in 2009. It was at the time the largest single loan that Efic had given. Much of this transaction was done on the National Interest Account and was thus undertaken with the cooperation of DFAT. Nonetheless, it never could have happened without passing Efic's due diligence standards, which have clearly been found wanting. In 2009, and again in 2012, Jubilee Australia found two major shortcomings of the project. Firstly, from a macroeconomic point of view, the expected financial impacts on the PNG economy were likely to be mixed, and poor governance in PNG meant that it was likely that this project would undermine any predicted widespread benefits for the ordinary people of PNG. Secondly, Jubilee warned that the unrealistic promises, combined with inadequate landowner mapping and political pressures on the landowners to sign on to the project agreement, would eventually lead to landowner discontent. We know that that indeed is what has happened. Jubilee Australia further warned that if this discontent caused low level conflict, the PNG government might send in the military, which would lead to an escalation and bloody civil conflict in the area. This is precisely what has happened. Efic was grossly incompetent in assessing this project's social, economic and political risks. I question the expertise of Efic in relation to other government agencies and projects and the ability to expand Efic's powers under this piece of legislation. This is just one example, and there are others. One is that Efic has been unable to assess the risks associated with other large resource projects. In the early 1980s, Efic financed and assisted in the expansion of the Rio Tinto controlled Panguna mine. The exploitation associated with this mine led to the Bougainville Civil War. Efic has never really taken responsibility for the role that it played in this, the largest and most destructive conflict in the South Pacific region since World War II. I don't just highlight these as one-off examples. This is an ongoing systemic problem we have with this agency and its ability to conduct proper risk assessment on social, economic and political risks and take responsibility for the role that this agency has had in escalating problems throughout our region. The list, of course, goes on. We get to the role that Efic has had in relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF. In addition to the overseas projects, we now know that Efic is tightly entwined in the operation of funding of projects through the NAIF. Efic's role in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility does nothing to inspire confidence in its ability to provide advice to other Commonwealth entities and agencies and to assist them in conducting due diligence. With Efic's support, the NAIF is a secretive organisation that is considering blatantly unethical and illegitimate investments like Adani's billion-dollar rail line from its proposed Carmichael coalmine to the Galilee Basin. NAIF and Efic have advanced the project to the due diligence stage, despite the fact that Adani made clear on 5 December that the loan was 'not critical' and that they applied for it 'because it's available' and 'it doesn't mean it's a make or break for the project'. In light of that statement, the Adani project clearly fails NAIF's own investment mandate. You have to wonder why Efic has allowed it to progress to the due diligence stage. Illustrative of the Efic-NAIF problems is the recent resignation of Efic's independent non-executive director and audit committee chair, Annabelle Chaplain. As a board member, Ms Chaplain oversaw Efic's work for NAIF from the beginning until her recent resignation. She gave notice to the minister, Mr Ciobo, on 19 July, just weeks after Environmental Justice Australia publicly pointed out a potential conflict of interest; and, despite being referred to as a board member with a term to 31 July 2019 in Efic answers to questions on notice, Ms Chaplain has now resigned. Ms Chaplain's potential conflicts of interest were obvious. She was a board member of Efic, the body assessing the suitability of the Adani taxpayer loan, at the same time as she was a shareholder and chair of Downer EDI, which has an arrangement for $2 billion worth of work with Adani—of course, if it is to go ahead. She is also the chair of Queensland Airports Ltd, which owns the Townsville Airport, which is working to 'secure the opportunity for Townsville to be the FIFO hub for the Adani mine'. No public explanation has yet been made as to Ms Chaplain's resignation beyond 'unexpected commitments'; nor do we know what measures she took previously to avoid the conflicts of interest prior to resigning. In the committee stage, I will be asking the minister specific questions in relation to this opaqueness around Efic and potential conflicts of interest of board members, and I'm warning the minister that it'd be helpful if we could get some answers when we get to that point. Perhaps the Productivity Commission said it best when it recently summarised its criticisms of Efic. It said: There is much to be learned from the long experience of EFIC providing concessional export finance. Some of these lessons cover what not to do. The assisted expansion of the Rio Tinto controlled mine is one example. The exploitation associated with the Panguna mine led to the Bougainville conflict war. These, of course, are things that have to be taken into consideration. The Productivity Commission's review of Efic found that it was failing to support small and medium enterprises where market gaps in access to export financing were likely. The commission also found governance problems such as insufficient internal and independent oversight of compliance with its mandate. The commission was not satisfied that the Efic board was provided with sufficient information in board papers to evaluate whether finance facilities submitted for approval met the requirements set out in the minister's statement of expectations. That, of course, has come directly from the Productivity Commission's review. Given our concerns about Efic's actions overseas as well as at home, through the NAIF and through overseas exploitation, we will be moving amendments to strike out these provisions in the bill. We cannot support an expansion of Efic's remit when it is so clearly failing to fulfil its current requirements. We are extremely worried about the lack of transparency to the parliament and to the Australian people in relation to the activities and funding of projects through Efic. We will be moving amendments to remove Efic's exemption from the freedom of information laws. Concerns about Efic's lack of transparency and accountability were identified during the Productivity Commission's inquiry in 2012. The inquiry found that Efic's exemption from the FOI Act should be removed and that Efic should be required to release more information about social and environmental impact assessments. Efic has failed to meaningfully improve its transparency and accountability mechanisms since the Productivity Commission's report, having only adopted a grievance mechanism and introduced a weak and secretive human rights policy. It is high time that we follow the Productivity Commission's recommendations and remove Efic's exemptions from FOI laws. We will move this amendment, and I call on all members in this place, including the opposition and fellow crossbenchers, to support this amendment. There is no excuse for an exemption from FOI, particularly for an organisation that has proven itself to be untrustworthy when it comes to these issues, looking at the impact of the projects that it funds and taking responsibility for the consequences. This is, of course, taxpayers' money, and FOI exemptions such as what currently exists undermine the ability for the public and the taxpayer to know that their money is being spent appropriately and in line with common standards. This bill also misses the opportunity to remove one of the many subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry, which continues to be a bugbear with this government. These fossil fuel subsidies were estimated to amount to $7.7 billion of taxpayer funds in the 2016-17 financial year alone. It is well established that export credit agency funding for fossil fuel development should be considered a fossil fuel subsidy, as that funding is provided by the government. But of course we never hear an acknowledgement by the government of just how much Australian taxpayers' money is going to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, allowed by the federal government. Efic currently lacks policy guidance in these areas, and it is therefore not required to consider the carbon emissions associated with investments it supports. We believe that Efic should not be able to use taxpayer funds to subsidise the fossil fuel industry anymore. Of course, we're not happy with Australian taxpayer money being used to subsidise a mates-rates-type loan for Adani, and the last thing we want to see is the ability for Efic to fund more projects like this into the future. As the world moves to address the crisis posed by climate change, and especially in the light of the Paris Agreement coming into force in 2016, the role of fossil fuel subsidies is increasingly under international scrutiny. We must end these polluting subsidies, and this is an opportunity to do that here today. That's why we'll be moving an amendment to ensure that Efic does not fund transactions that directly or indirectly support the extraction of fossil fuels in relation to the NAIF or any other agencies that Efic lends its expertise to. One of the other issues in relation to this bill—and this was covered by Senator Carr extensively in his speech on the second reading—is of course the concerns in relation to offshoring of Australian workers' jobs overseas. We are concerned that this bill will result in further offshoring of Australian manufacturing positions and deprive companies that produce in Australia and in some cases give advantage to their competition in other countries. I will be keen to see further clarification around the opposition's amendments when we get to committee stage, and we look forward to seeing if we can in some ways improve that aspect of the bill. We do know that the ACTU wrote that it could not agree with this part of the bill, because they feared it would make another blow to Australian manufacturing and the services sector. The Greens welcome the government's recognition of these concerns, but we are yet to see what true action will come from fixing it up in relation to that part of the bill. Despite the possibility of some of these safeguards in relation to offshoring of jobs, the Greens will not and cannot support this bill as it stands. We have major concerns that the government has missed the opportunity to reform the accountability mechanisms and issues related to Efic. They've missed the ball. This was the bill to do that. We cannot continue to see and we will not support the continuation of such a secret organisation operating with huge amounts of taxpayer funds in the dark without the information being available to the parliament or, indeed, the taxpayer. We don't want to see further taxpayer funds spent on subsidising the fossil fuel industry. For all of these reasons the Greens will not be supporting this bill. 09:56 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise to make a contribution in respect of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017. I want to start off by saying that Labor does support the good work of Efic, but it's important to note that that's not without some concerns as to some aspects of its operation and with regard to proper scrutiny of the work of Efic. It's right and proper that the government plays a role to support our exporters by providing financial services where the private sector cannot, and Efic has played its part in supporting Australian jobs and growing our economy. It is to be commended for that. It would appear that the government's been on a bit of a journey in respect of this issue. I note that in 2014 or thereabouts the government released a report of the National Commission of Audit that made a number of recommendations. At that point of time it was the view of the National Commission of Audit that Efic should cease to exist. That's a quite extraordinary recommendation from the National Commission of Audit, which generally is seen as reflecting fairly extreme right-wing views, but it's good to see that we still have Efic performing a function. But, as I say, it's not without the need for scrutiny. And EFIC isn't without its flaws, as I indicated. I'm mindful that its processes in the past have let Australians down. So it's important that, when we look at legislation that amends Efic, we ensure that Efic does really deliver for everyday Australians. The Labor Party is committed to the objectives of growing our economy and creating more well-paying jobs here at home. The bill seeks to amend the Efic Act in two ways. Labor support one of those amendments and will seek our own amendments to address concerns with the other ground of the Efic bill. The first part of the bill—the support for Commonwealth entities—expands Efic's function to include the provision of services to Commonwealth entities and companies, subject to the approval of the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. This would allow Efic to offer its specialist financial capabilities in the operation and administration of Commonwealth financing programs where there is no connection to exports. As it currently stands, there is only one other body that Efic can currently provide services to, and that is the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I am the chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, and we are inquiring into the governance of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Some submissions have noted concerns in relation to the arrangements between Efic and NAIF, particularly that there is little public information provided about how Efic serves NAIF and that the processes governing this arrangement are robust. In the course of the proceedings of that inquiry we heard evidence from Professor Thomas Clarke, professor of corporate governance at the University of Technology Sydney. Professor Clarke talked about the fact that there was no effective transparency in the NAIF's governance framework, including in its project assessment and approval processes. He commented that it is unheard of for a publicly funded body to work in these conditions of absolute secrecy. He said all meetings, information and decisions are kept secret until they are approved, and the public is denied any knowledge of specific projects and who is proposing the projects. He said that this is not compatible with accountability and probity in public office, and neglects all established principles and protocols in public service in Australia and internationally. We generally support the work of Efic. Of course, the issue of NAIF governance and operations is a question for the board of NAIF. One doesn't know the full extent of the advice given by Efic to NAIF in some of these issues, particularly in relation to due diligence arrangements. But there is a question mark as to what is happening with NAIF and the processes that are there to deal with applications that are coming before the NAIF. I must say that NAIF is certainly not a model of transparency that we would like to hold up for others to follow. This all goes to say that, while Efic does do good work, we know it is not perfect. We can't necessarily blame Efic for the decisions of the NAIF board, but there are some concerns that NAIF is not operating in a manner that Australians would like to see. Generally, the first part of the bill is quite sensible and the Labor Party supports that. Enabling the government to deliver services in a more productive way makes a lot of sense. However, the second part of the bill has raised quite a few concerns. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee looked into this bill. It heard the concerns of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network and the ACTU that the bill might lead to Efic providing financing to companies that might offshore Australian jobs and remove incentives to produce or manufacture in Australia. So Labor has taken a constructive approach to improving the legislation so that not only are no Australian jobs lost in this process but there are assurances that Efic's finance is leading to net job increases here at home. I would like to thank the shadow minister for his work in tightening the amendments to ensure this happens. I also appreciate the minister working with Labor to improve this legislation. This is something that does not happen often enough in this place. I note that the minister already has moved amendments to the original bill in the House of Representatives, which stipulated that, when applying for a loan or guarantee for the purpose of direct investment overseas, the person who carries on the business must certify in writing given to Efic that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business or a related party of the business during the term of the loan. Labor supports this amendment, but it doesn't go far enough. There should be higher standards to make sure that a company has used an Efic loan or guarantee for its intended purpose and met all the requirements. We also know that what is promised and what is delivered do not always line up. When taxpayer funds are being used to assist companies, there is a responsibility for government and the parliament to make sure that Australian jobs are being created. I now turn to the first amendment that Labor has proposed in respect of the Australian jobs test. Labor will move amendments to ensure that an Australian based business, if they are successful in receiving a loan or guarantee to be used for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia, must provide Efic with certification as to whether a net job increase did occur in Australia as a result of Efic's financing at the completion of the loan or guarantee. This certification must also be publicly released by Efic. It makes a lot of sense for good governance that these results are made public. We do know that Efic has fallen short in the past, and measures like this help to tighten the governance framework. I also understand that the government will support this amendment and I want to thank the government for working with Labor to make this legislation stronger. In relation to the second amendment that we propose, Labor is also concerned that an Efic loan or guarantee to an Australian based business for the purpose of direct investment overseas may be used to offshore existing parts of the Australian business. This may leave large numbers of Australians unemployed. Companies do this, but they shouldn't use taxpayer funds to do this. This is why Labor believes that an Efic loan or guarantee that is to be used by an Australian based company for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia should not be used to offshore substantial parts of the business. This was the position the shadow minister took to the minister: that an Efic loan or guarantee that is used for the dominant purpose of direct investment outside Australia should not be used to offshore substantial parts of the business. I understand the shadow minister met with Efic over the break and discussed the exact wording of the amendment, and it has been agreed that, for smaller businesses, there was a legitimate reason as to why some facilities may need to be sent overseas to help grow the business back here in Australia. Efic already defines a large business as one with a turnover of more than $150 million per annum. To ensure proper operation of Efic, Labor agreed that the proposed amendment should apply to businesses with more than $150 million turnover per annum. This is a sensible amendment, which will help to ensure taxpayers' funds are not used to offshore Australian jobs, while allowing for the growth of small and medium businesses. So, in summary, these Labor amendments are completely consistent with the policy positions we have taken in a number of areas recently. It is important that creating good, secure, well-paying Australian jobs is foremost in the minds of elected officials here in Canberra. Whether it is a policy on apprentices, steel production, Labor's proposed Australian skills authority, the skill-up training fund, saying no to labour loopholes in trade deals or protecting penalty rates, Labor is leading the way on putting well-paid Australian jobs first. However, when you look at the current government, it seems to be more based on a free market, de-regulated, 'You're on your own' ideology, rather than on sound policy. Whether it's on shipbuilding, 457s, Work for the Dole, the Youth Jobs PaTH intern program, slashing funding to TAFEs and universities, the slow rollout of the regional jobs packages or cutting penalty rates, you see a picture: the government isn't taking these issues seriously and the government isn't taking Australians seriously. And that is unacceptable. However, as long as the government adopts Labor's sensible amendments, which will put Australian jobs first, I will support this bill. 10:09 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I support the second reading stages of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017, but I have real reservations about it. I believe it will be improved by the amendments that will be moved by the crossbench—by Senator Hanson-Young, particularly, in relation to FOI—and by the opposition in relation to the issue of Australian jobs. But it is important to make this point: at a point in time when manufacturing in Australia as a percentage of GDP has plunged by half in the last decade, and more than 200,000 local manufacturing jobs have been lost, this bill in its current form would introduce provisions that would see Efic being able to support Australian companies to set up manufacturing facilities offshore in preference to here at home. That is something that seriously concerns me. My understanding is that the government will agree to the opposition's amendments, and that is obviously welcome. Whilst the committee report on this fairly drew out both the pros and cons of the impact this legislation would have, I believe it grossly underestimated the risks of this legislation in the context of an economic sector in a perilous condition. We know energy prices in this country are putting manufacturing at enormous risk. I will have more to say outside this chamber about AEMO later. I think AEMO have been abysmal in terms of their forecasting and in terms of their leadership in the energy sector because that impacts on manufacturing. In a sense, it does draw us back to this particular bill. There are two key amendments. The first amendment seeks, in the words contained in the explanatory memorandum: … to allow Efic to offer its specialist financial capabilities in the operation and administration of Commonwealth financing programs, where there is no connection to exports. Following Efic's provision of services to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility ("the NAIF"), Commonwealth departments have expressed interest in leveraging Efic's expertise. On the face of it, this seems sensible. These are matters I've raised in estimates with Efic. It is taking a lot of resources in terms of the NAIF. There have been points raised by Jubilee Australia and the Australia Institute, particularly in relation to the dilution of focus. I think if we could get some assurances from the industry minister in relation to this, that would be very useful. Efic's annual report states: Efic's primary purpose is to facilitate and encourage Australian export trade on a commercial basis. We provide financial support to Australian-based companies that are exporting, integral to a global supply chain or seeking to grow internationally. The report also points out that the organisation compromises about 100 people. Any diversion of resource and function in such a small and focused organisation could only reasonably be expected to distract and prevent the organisation in respect of encouraging export trade. Exports are our lifeblood. The more we export, the better it is for the economy. I am a bit nervous that the Australian dollar is hovering just below 80 cents. I would prefer it to be way below that; around 70 or 75 cents seems to be a sweet spot for our exporters. So I want to be assured that Efic should and needs to remain tightly focused in facilitating export trade, and that is why I have been concerned about the first amendment. There are some transparency measures there. The FOI amendments by the Greens, I think, are good amendments and they ought to be supported to improve the legislation. Now to the second amendment which I am concerned about. Under the current legislation, for a company to receive financial support from Efic, it needs to demonstrate there is some element of labour, goods and materials of Australian content. The level of Australian content in an export contract is an important factor in determining the amount of financial support that Efic provides. In essence, the higher the level of Australian content, the more financial support Efic can provide. The proposed unamended changes to the legislation seek to remove the local content requirement that invokes Efic's support and replace it with the need 'only for the benefit flowing back to Australia' to be present. That is incredibly imprecise, incredibly vague, and open to abuse. This creates a situation where Efic funding could be used to offshore a new manufacturing capability at the cost of Australian jobs. The opposition's amendments are welcome, but I would put this question on notice—short notice—to the shadow industry minister, Senator Carr: what analysis has been done of these amendments in terms of preventing a bleeding of Australian jobs overseas in relation to that? I note the amendment. It is welcome, but I am still nervous about the fact that it could be rorted and that we could see money that Efic is providing—Australian taxpayers' money—go towards seeing jobs offshored, albeit with the stricter requirements in the amendments moved by the opposition. Let's put this in context. This is not some esoteric argument I am raising. Australia's manufacturing sector has been in broad decline since 2008, with real output having contracted at every quarter since September 2011. Over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2008, and the rate of job losses is accelerating. Employment in manufacturing fell six per cent in 2015 alone, and it's going to get much, much worse unless we deal with the energy crisis in this country. The fact that gas prices are double the price of Australian gas being sold in Japan, notwithstanding the liquefaction, the regasification and the transport of gas to Japan, means there is something seriously awry with our gas market in this country. The impact it has had on manufacturers that rely on gas has been devastating. When new contracts come up, a lot of manufacturers will put their hands up and say, 'Do we want to do business in Australia?' That concerns me. I know there have been some measures, which I welcome, from the government, but this is an existential crisis for manufacturing in this country, so I don't want to make it worse with what this bill is proposing. These amendments from the opposition, which I understand the government is supporting, will at least help to ameliorate that concern. That is my concern, and that is something that should be explored in the committee stages of this bill. Some of the submitters made the point that the loosening of the Efic reins may assist companies to set up marketing promotions offshore. While these sort of initiatives must be encouraged and supported by government, there are other programs better suited to marketing such as the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. To pull the Efic lever to facilitate promotion is to pull the wrong lever, and that is why I still have serious concerns about this bill. The amendments moved and the concessions by the government are welcome. But I will still reserve my position in the third reading stages of this bill, because I would not want to see Efic, an arm of government funded by taxpayers that is meant to encourage Australian exports and, by extension, Australian jobs and the growth of our economy, to be used as a Trojan Horse to fund the expansion of manufacturing overseas. That, to me, is a bridge too far and should not be supported. With those words, I support the second reading stage of this bill. I believe the bill can be improved in the committee stage, but I still have serious reservations about it. 10:17 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017. Have you got a good business idea? Have the banks refused your requests for a loan? Then get a loan from the government; it's getting back into the banking business. It has got the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will provide you with a loan if you tell the public servants that your business idea will save the climate. The Abbott government had wanted to abolish this green bank, but after the Senate rejected the idea and we got a new Prime Minister, the government is now an enthusiastic supporter. The government wants to establish the Regional Investment Corporation, which will provide you with a loan if you tell the public servants that if you don't get a concessional loan your farm will be taken over by a larger, more-efficient farmer—we just couldn't have that. Now, the government is expanding the role of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, so it doesn't just provide loans. If you've got a business idea relating to the exporting of manufactured goods that no bank will touch, now the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, through this bill, will offer loans. If you've got a business idea relating to tourism but can't get a loan from a bank because they assess your idea as bonkers, all you need to do is point out to the public servants that some of the tourists you hope for will be foreigners. The same applies if you've got an idea for an online business. If you point out to the public servants that some of the online customers you hope for will be foreigners, you're in. If your idea relates to intellectual property, and no bank thinks it's worth a pinch of salt, then you're in luck too, provided you point out to the public servants that some foreigners might use your intellectual property. You'll even be able to get a loan from the government's Export Finance and Insurance Corporation if you want to invest overseas, provided you mention to the public servants that some indirect benefit will flow back to Australia. So what are you waiting for? If you want a loan and the banks have knocked you back, there's a government bank that's ready to hand you some taxpayers' cash. Commercial viability is no longer a prerequisite. All you need is to have an idea that suits the political breeze. I hear the cynics out there pooh-poohing this development. They say that government banking makes us poorer by diverting cash to ideas that aren't as profitable as the ideas supported by commercial banks. They say that, when loans turn bad, government banking makes unwilling taxpayers instead of willing bank shareholders take the hit. They also make annoying references to the history of government banks—but it will be different this time, somehow! I don't think it will come as a surprise that the Liberal Democrats oppose the establishment of government banks, which make us all poorer. I will be opposing this bill. Unfortunately, I'll probably be alone in doing so. 10:20 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales Let me begin by thanking the senators for their contributions to the debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic, plays an important role in supporting the growth of Australian exporters, with a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. Efic delivers simple and creative finance solutions for Australian exporters. Efic provided 130 Australian SME exporters with over $150 million in support in 2016-17. This government wants to make it easier for Australian exporters to access Efic's support for jobs and growth, which hopefully will lead to higher wages as well. We need to foster an environment where Australia's exporters can grow. As it stands, the bill will look to do this by improving Efic's support for businesses who cannot obtain private sector finance to expand their reach overseas. To address a point made by Senator Leyonhjelm: Efic are addressing a gap in the market, particularly when it comes to smaller enterprises wanting to expand overseas who may not have a great track record in the private sector here. Private banks may not be willing to finance their exports overseas, so Efic do fill a gap. Yes, they do take a risk. It's possible that some of these firms may not work out, but it is a gap in the marketplace that facilities like Efic are seeking to fill. This bill will enable Efic to lend directly to an expanded range of Australian exporters and will ensure Efic's support for overseas direct investment results in more jobs in Australia. The evidence is very clear that Australian companies that export abroad are more productive, pay higher wages and, in that sense, make a premium contribution to the Australian economy. This bill prioritises the needs of a wider range of small and medium-sized enterprises across Australia to grow exports and jobs and expand their presence overseas, including tourism operators, online businesses and exporters of intellectual property and other related rights. In particular, we want to be able to keep the intellectual property here, but also to use it as a platform for exports. This government responded to issues raised during the Senate committee review process by passing amendments in the House which have been noted and which legislate a net-positive jobs test for overseas direct investments and maintain local content requirements. The net-positive employment stipulation for Efic support for overseas direct investment means businesses will have to certify in writing their reasonable belief that Efic's support for overseas direct investment will result in a net increase to the number of people employed in Australia. I understand the opposition will shortly move two amendments to build upon this. One amendment will ensure Efic publicly discloses the business certification. This requirement is an extension of Efic's existing policy to publish the details of its high-level commercial transactions. We have no objection to this. The second opposition amendment will ensure large businesses with annual revenue of $150 million or more certify to Efic that they will not move all or a substantial part of their business overseas as a result of Efic's support for an overseas direct investment transaction. The idea that Australian taxpayers would be subsidising the offshoring of Australian jobs is clearly something that would not go down well with the Australian public. This requirement codifies Efic's existing policy to ensure its support for overseas direct investment will not result in plant closure or net job losses in Australia, and again we have no objections to this. With around 100 employees today, Efic operates in the financial services sector with experience and specialist expertise regarding finance arrangements. This bill enables Efic's expertise to be made available to a wide range of commonwealth entities and companies on a fee-for-service basis beyond its current work for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, subject to ministerial approval. This government responded to issues raised during the senate committee review process by passing amendments in the House to require Efic to charge fees for any services provided to Commonwealth entities and companies. In this way, additional resources will be provided to Efic so that Efic's support for SMEs remains undiminished. Australia's exporters are among the best businesses in this country. This bill will enable us to help even more of them receive the financial support they need to win business, employ more Australians, grow internationally and achieve export success. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:29]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bernardi)

45 AYES Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Cash, MC Cormann, M Dodson, P Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Williams, JR Xenophon, N 9 NOES Bernardi, C Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Leyonhjelm, DE McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 6448 10:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I have some questions for the minister. Minister, I referred in my second reading contribution to the appointment of Annabelle Chaplain to the Efic board. I want to go to the specifics in relation to her appointment. She's now resigned, of course. Was the minister aware of Ms Chaplain's roles with Downer EDI and Queensland Airports Limited when considering her term on the Efic board, prior to her shock resignation? 10:34 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I'd have to seek further information. But I would make the point that, in relation to the person concerned, if you're talking about a possible conflict between Efic and NAIF in this regard, please understand that Efic is a service provider to the NAIF and provides no sort of decision-making role and does not in any way dictate what the NAIF should or should not do. 10:35 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Efic was advising NAIF from its inception in July 2017, despite one of its board members, Annabelle Chaplain, having clear conflicts of interest. She was, Minister, just for your information, responsible for overseeing NAIF's project assessment under Efic, as well as on the board of companies that would benefit from NAIF projects, such as the Adani rail line. Is the minister aware of the roles that Ms Chaplain held besides being on the board of Efic? 10:35 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales My understanding is based on what information was publicly available at the time—that there were some reports about various roles this particular person occupied. But I believe in all circumstances the matter's been well handled, and the person involved is no longer there. 10:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia When did Efic executives become aware that there might be a personal conflict of interest between Ms Chaplain in the assessment of projects applying for NAIF funds, such as Adani? 10:36 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales You're now asking me a more detailed series of questions on a matter which is not directly relevant to the bill here. I'm happy to take a series of questions on notice and have them answered for you, but I believe it would be in the interests of all of us to focus on the substance of what is in this bill. 10:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia One of the reasons this is important is the lack of transparency within Efic—the fact that it is exempt from FOI and it operates in a very secretive manner. There have been conflicts of interest for Efic board members. Ms Chaplain's appointment was ended abruptly. I believe it is relevant to this bill, because you are asking the parliament to accept an expansion of powers and roles for Efic, despite the fact that currently there is a cloud over the way the organisation runs and how it handles potential conflicts of interest for board members. That's why. I'm happy to put each of these questions to you, and, if you can answer, that would be great; if you need to take them on notice, that is your right, of course. But, just to be clear, I think these questions are directly related to this issue, because you are asking the parliament to accept an expanded role for this organisation, but what we have here is one example of a woman who has been on the board of Efic who had conflicts of interest, and I'd like to know how Efic managed this conflict of interest from the word go. If you could take on notice, Minister, when Efic executives first become aware of a potential conflict of interest for Ms Chaplain in the assessment of projects applying for NAIF funds, that would be helpful. I'd also like to know, Minister, what actions were taken by Efic to avoid this conflict, or the perception of it. And I hope that is something that you could provide to us today because, going forward, we need to know that Efic has proper processes in place to deal with potential or perceived conflicts of interest. 10:38 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales The first point is this: Efic has a policy to manage conflicts, and that policy would have been applied in this particular case. The other point to make is that this organisation is subject, I believe, to a higher degree of public scrutiny than any so-called private bank, because of budget estimates, for example, and other processes of government. So I am satisfied that, subject to things like commercial-in-confidence requirements and the rest, this is an organisation that meets appropriate levels of transparency and openness. I'll have more to say about particular amendments that the senator wants to run in relation to FOI exemption in a second, when that matter is raised, but I'll leave it there for now. 10:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister please give an explanation as to why Ms Chaplain resigned from the board and why her tenure on the board expired much earlier than originally planned? She was meant to be on the board until 2019. Why was her tenure short-lived? 10:40 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales In the interests of natural justice for the person you've named, I will find out the exact circumstances in which she resigned and provide that to you. Again, I make the point that we're here today to deal with a forward-looking set of propositions to help Efic do its job even better in the future. The reality is that Efic has policies in place to manage these conflicts. Efic needs to exist because overseas bodies exist in this space—export credit agencies. We often hear complaints from Australian companies that they want assistance from the Australian government to be able to compete against overseas suppliers, who get the support of their governments on major contracts. The main benefit would come back to Australia in terms of contracts and orders. 10:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister please table for the Senate the policies of Efic in relation to dealing with conflicts of interest? 10:41 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I'm happy to do that in due course, when I get a copy. 10:41 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Following the same line of questioning as Senator Hanson-Young, we know that Efic has a very flawed track record when it comes to supporting large resource projects. We know that it supported the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, which has performed really poorly. I understand that Senator Hanson-Young has mentioned other projects. The Productivity Commission review in 2012 found a wide range of concerns. Can you just outline to me why we shouldn't address those concerns first, before we grant additional powers to Efic to assist more agencies? 10:42 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales The point I would make is this: Efic is a learning organisation. When it has done things in the past, it's gone back to review them to work out what has worked and what hasn't worked, and we go from there. This particular bill, and what it does here, in part reflects those sorts of lessons from previous experience. Some of the examples you throw up are examples where the evidence may well be contested and the conclusions may be contested. It's important for us to understand that you or I may have a particular view about the role of Efic in a particular resource project, because we may have a view about that particular resource, but that should not cloud whether we therefore have a positive view about whether Efic is operating in an appropriate way in dealing with the matter. 10:43 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I suppose I'm not talking specifically about the investments. I'm now talking specifically about the Productivity Commission's review, which did express a wide range of concerns. So it's not a question of whether we support the areas that Efic is investing in. On that, has the Productivity Commission looked at Efic's governance since it responded to the 2012 review? Has there been another look by the Productivity Commission at what Efic is doing? Or, if they haven't, has the Auditor-General, for example? 10:43 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales In relation to the Productivity Commission, I don't believe they have. In relation to the Auditor-General, they have an ongoing brief. The Auditor-General can, at any time, decide to examine an organisation or a particular set of projects or proposals. That's a matter for the Auditor-General. 10:44 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Is the government contemplating opening up Efic to FOI requests, so that we can get a better understanding? It's a black box at the moment. There are claims and counter claims, as you say, but that is in large part because of the secrecy under which Efic operates. Is any consideration being given to opening up FOI requests, so that we get a better understanding of how Efic is governed and how decisions are made? 10:44 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales Efic does have an exemption from FOI. It is limited. It relates essentially to transactional matters under parts 4 and 5 of the Efic Act. The reason for the exemption is to protect commercial-in-confidence information provided by the client. Clearly exporters will not want to provide commercially sensitive information to a financial institution that could be made public through FOI. Efic's long-held view is that the current Efic-specific exemption provides administrative certainty to Efic regarding its obligations and greater certainty to clients about its ability to maintain confidential information without which the quality of information provided to Efic may be prejudiced and Efic's ability to make informed decisions on the risks of transactions it considered supporting impaired. In turn, that would increase the risks and potentially the costs to taxpayers. Efic's current FOI exemption is consistent with the banker's common law duty of confidentiality to clients and has been established for nearly 100 years. I would add, though, that on top of that Efic is subject to estimates and other processes of government. So there are a number of ways in which we can examine the structure and governance of the organisation. But in relation to information about particular transactions, as I indicated here, the FOI exemption is an extension of the common law doctrine of protecting financial privacy, and it is consistent with and is followed in every common law jurisdiction, including Australia. 10:46 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Have you got any advice from the Productivity Commission or the Auditor-General on this specific legislation? 10:46 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales No. 10:46 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Given the expanded powers for Efic under this bill, could you perhaps give me an outline of what specific government agencies the government wants Efic to support and how it is going to manage that support? Are there going to be more staff employed? Is there a move to decentralise where necessary? The example I give is that Efic is providing significant support to the NAIF and yet it hasn't located one staff member to northern Australia. So can you give me a sense of how you plan to operationalise Efic's increased role? 10:47 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales Efic has a certain set of expertise and, as the NAIF example indicates, it would provide that expertise to other governments, programs and services seeking to do analogous things. But it would do so on the basis that it would recover the cost of those services so that they would not be at the expense of Efic's clients, particularly the small- and medium-sized enterprises. 10:47 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Thank you. I want to move on to an area that Senator Hanson-Young touched on, and that is Efic's support of the NAIF. I suppose today more than any other day we should be particularly concerned about the role of the government in subsidising bad fossil fuel projects. My question is whether Efic has a team working within the NAIF on project evaluation for the Adani coalmine. 10:48 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I'd have to check and get back to you on that. 10:48 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Can you tell me whether Efic is working on the Adani project? Is that something you can tell us? 10:48 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales To be properly helpful, I'd have to check. I will take it on notice. 10:48 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Is Efic currently contemplating the evaluation of finance options for the Carmichael mine, the Adani project? If so, does that include ensuring and guaranteeing commercial bank loans? 10:48 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I will have to check. 10:48 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Finally, can the minister definitively rule out whether Efic will provide loan insurance or loan guarantees to a commercial banking operation for that project? 10:49 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales What happens in relation to NAIF's decisions in relation to Adani is a matter for NAIF. Efic's role is to provide services. It would not be the financier. 10:49 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8203 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 11), after the definition of EFIC's Commonwealth entities functions in subsection 3(1), insert: large business: see section 3A. related party, for a business, has the meaning given by section 228 of the Corporations Act 2001. substantial part of a business meansa part of a business that is substantial and not minor or insignificant. (2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 21), after item 2, insert: 2A After section 3 Insert: 3A Meaning of large business (1) A business is a large business at a particular time in a financial year (the current financial year) if: (a) its revenue for the previous financial year is $150,000,000 or more; or (b) if there was no time in the previous financial year when the business was carried on—its revenue for the current financial year is as at that time $150,000,000 or more. (2) Revenue is to be calculated for the purposes of this section in accordance with accounting standards in force at the relevant time. (3) Schedule 1, item 6A, page 4 (line 22), omit "requirement in subsection (4) is", substitute "requirements in subsection (4) are". (4) Schedule 1, item 6A, page 4 (lines 23 to 27), omit subsection 16(4), substitute: (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the requirements are the following: (a) the person who carries on the business must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business, or a related party of the business, during the term of the loan; (b) at the completion of the loan, the person carrying on the business must certify to EFIC whether the loan has resulted in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business, or a related party of the business; (c) if the business is a large business—the person who carries on the business must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the loan will not be used to move the whole or asubstantial part of the business, or of a related party of the business, overseas; and (d) EFIC must ensure that it publicly discloses copies of the certification it receives under subsection (4)(b). (5) Schedule 1, item 6B, page 4 (line 30) to page 5 (line 7), omit subsections 23(3) and 23(4), substitute: (3) However, EFIC must not lend money under this section for the purpose of financing a transaction whose dominant purpose is direct investment outside Australia by a person carrying on business in Australia unless the requirements in subsection (4) are satisfied. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the requirements are the following: (a) a person to whom the money is lent must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the person reasonably believes that the loan will result in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business, or a related party of the business, during the term of the loan; (b) at the completion of the loan, the person carrying on the business must certify to EFIC whether the loan has resulted in a net increase in the number of people employed in Australia by the business, or a related party of the business; (c) if the business is a large business—the person who carries on the business must certify, by writing given to EFIC, that the loan will not be used to move the whole or asubstantial part of the business, or of a related party of the business, overseas; and (d) EFIC must ensure that it publicly discloses copies of the certification it receives under subsection (4)(b). I will make some preliminary remarks in regard to some matters that were raised in the second reading debate. Efic, of course, has provided an extremely valuable service to this country since 1957. It's a very substantive role. I am unashamedly a supporter of public intervention when it comes to access to finance. I'm surprised the Greens are not. When it comes to manufacturers in the country today, when you talk to manufacturers, they will talk to you about two major problems they face, which are the price of energy and access to finance. We know that for exporters there is a particular difficulty when it comes to our financial institutions. Of course, by and large they have been privatised, have been deregulated, and as a consequence they're probably the most profitable in the world. But, when it comes to their social responsibilities, I think we have ample cause to see why we need a royal commission into our banks. We do have clear and unequivocal examples where, time after time, our banking system has failed to meet its social and economic obligations to the development of this country, whereas Efic, since 1957, has provided support to manufacturers and a range of enterprises—small, large and medium-sized enterprises—in accessing finance that quite often is simply not available through commercial means. Senator Leyonhjelm says, 'If it's not available from the commercial sector, well, it's not good enough.' That's not the case. That's not the reality. That's not the economic reality of how businesses is actually done. I can talk directly of experiences I had with General Motors Holden, as an example. I don't normally discuss matters relating to Efic but the matter is now public. General Motors Holden, during the global economic crisis, had been banking with the Commonwealth Bank for 60 years in this country. But the banking system in this country said, 'Oh well, we're not interested in this area because the risks are too great,' and withdrew their financial support for one of the leading companies in this country at the time. There was no access to finance through commercial means, and it was Efic that filled that gap, met that market failure. It became public because of the extraordinarily unethical arrangements that had been entered into between the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and Mr Godwin Grech. As a consequence of those arrangements, these matters became a matter of public record. In those circumstances General Motors Holden were obliged to enter into arrangements with Efic. The risk was taken on under the national account, which meant it was actually a cabinet decision. But it was properly evaluated by Efic, and the consequences were that, at a very high rate of interest, a premium rate of interest, General Motors were able to secure a line of credit that they couldn't get anywhere else. It turned out that they didn't need to use it. They had to have it; otherwise they could well have gone belly up. They didn't actually need to call upon it. That is an example of what an extraordinarily important service this agency has provided. Of course, we see them in so many other areas. Whether it be in regard to companies that have operated in the area of engineering or companies that have developed new technologies for export, whether it be in manufacturing, whether it be in the resources sector, whether it be in construction—right across the economy—Efic have played an extraordinarily important role. Traditionally it was a role that was played by what used to be the publicly owned banks through the development agencies they had available. Private banks aren't much interested in this. Think about what's happened throughout regional Australia: you can't get access to finance under the present financial system for so many aspects of the economy. When it comes to exports, I think the minister is quite correct to point to the fact that, by international standards, other competing economies provide these services to their enterprises. It is only fitting that we're able to do so. The circumstances that we now face are: what are the conditions under which these arrangements are made? That's why these bills are so important. What we have here in these amendments provides a means by which we are actually strengthening accountability. That's why we're moving these amendments. Efic has provided assistance to—I think one minister said there was $150 million in last year's accounts, 194 transactions valued at $390 million in total. It supported 149 export contracts worth $1.4 billion—a very substantial contribution. So the question that concerns us is: how do we make sure that this resource is not made available to actually facilitate the offshoring of jobs and capabilities? My colleague Mr Jason Clare has been able to negotiate very strong improvements in this bill with Mr Ciobo. I congratulate both of them for undertaking that work. I acknowledge the government's work in this regard in acknowledging that the bill could in fact be strengthened as a consequence of these amendments that I am moving, which require Efic to provide additional measures of accountability from the companies that are seeking assistance. Regarding questions raised by Senator Xenophon, perhaps I can deal with that now—I trust he's paying attention, because I don't intend to pursue this at any great length other than through this contribution now. I point out to Senator Xenophon that the principles underlying these amendments—and we don't have the resources of government to be able to say yes; we've got an empirical study to back these up., but the philosophical principles underpinning these amendments—are that applicants must provide a certification at the beginning and at the end of any particular project as to the net job increases as a result of the particular project that was the basis of the loan. This is information that must be made public. The essential proposition is that to grow jobs in Australia, and where there is a need to move some facilities offshore—and we acknowledge that this happens; there are those who suggest that if we say 'made in Australia' then every single component has to be made in Australia, but that's a nonsense—in a globalised world, you will have some elements and some capacities that will need to be undertaken in other parts of the world. But the net impact will be in firms with over $150 million per annum. The net impact will be positive and that will have to be demonstrated in terms of the intention of the project, both before and after. Finally, in regard to the criticisms of Efic in regard to any particular project, fancy calling on the Productivity Commission as an example—exemplar!—of any assessment of manufacturing in this country. In my opinion, they should have been privatised a long time ago. That would've been the first thing that could've been done to assist manufacturing in this country. We could've cut out the middle man, taken the position straight out from the IPA, and, I think, saved the public a lot of money. But to suggest that the Productivity Commission would be the paragon of virtue when it comes to assessing public enterprise in this country—I find that highly amusing coming from those great left-wing advocates, the Greens. To suggest that somehow or other Efic is responsible for what has been undertaken by the project managers in another jurisdiction is really stretching credulity. They are the providers of finance. That does not make them responsible for the management of a particular project any more than the Commonwealth Bank became responsible for the management of my household when I took out a mortgage with them. It's a nonsense to suggest that there's a direct link between the management of a project and the provision of finance. The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 8203, moved by Senator Carr, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 11:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8206 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), after item 4, insert: 4A At the end of subsection 8(2) Add: (c) ensure it is not funding transactions that, directly or indirectly, support the extraction of fossil fuels (including in relation to EFIC's Northern Australia economic infrastructure functions). (2) Schedule 1, item 6A, page 4 (after line 27), at the end of section 16, add: (5) In addition, EFIC must not make a guarantee or enter into a contract under this section in relation to a loan or a proposed loan if the loan or the proposed loan is to be used, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of extracting fossil fuels. (3) Schedule 1, item 6B, page 5 (after line 7), at the end of section 23, add: (5) In addition, EFIC must not lend money under this section for the purpose of financing a transaction if the purpose of the transaction is to extract fossil fuels. The Australian Greens have circulated two sets of amendments. The first set, which I have just moved, is in relation to putting a restriction on Efic's ability to use its expertise and to fund further subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. We are, of course, very concerned that, despite a number of issues that Efic could and should be spending its time on in relation to other types of export projects, and advancing ability for Australian industry, the last thing we should have is more Australian taxpayer money being spent on propping up the fossil fuel industry in this country. We hear over and over again from the Turnbull government—from many on the backbench, but particularly from those on the frontbench—that the fossil fuel industry doesn't get any subsidies and, indeed, that it's only the renewable energy sector that does. Well, what a load of bollocks. It's not true. We know that billions and billions of dollars, Australian taxpayer dollars, go every year into subsidising the fossil fuel industry in this country. These amendments are in relation to stopping more Australian taxpayer money being spent to prop up the fossil fuel industry. At a time when we need to be reducing carbon emissions, at a time when we need to be finding better ways to reach our Paris agreement targets and at a time when we need to be transitioning to cleaner forms of energy, spending billions and billions of dollars and Commonwealth government resources on propping up and subsidising the fossil fuel industry is just madness—absolutely crazy stuff. We hear all the time from members of the Turnbull government that the renewable energy sector is propped up and subsidised. Well, it is subsidised nowhere near to the extent that the fossil fuel industry gets subsidised by the taxpayer day in and day out. Through this bill we have the opportunity for it to be expanded and propped up and subsidised even more, and the Australian Greens don't want to see that happen. We don't want to see more Australian taxpayer money wasted, propping up an industry when the time has come for transition. Only yesterday Senator McGrath stood up in this place and said, 'Coal is good' and sat down. That is the level of maturity from this government in relation to tackling carbon emissions and, indeed, tackling a failing fossil fuel industry. We know that we must transition in order to save the planet, that we must put renewable energy on a firm footing, because that is what is going to be needed to power the nation in the future. In fact, it's working right now. The craziness of the push within the Turnbull government to say now that they are prepared to pay to keep coal-fired power stations burning even longer, polluting even longer, for more and more years, just because the Turnbull government doesn't have the gumption to take on this industry and the gumption to take on the right-wing rump in the backbench and, of course, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. This is the level of madness and the lack of maturity that is coming from this government. If we can try and save some Australian taxpayer money through this process to stop Efic funding being used to prop up the fossil fuel industry, then we should. It doesn't make financial sense; it doesn't make environmental sense and it is ridiculous to see, at a time when we need to be decarbonising the economy, more backdoor ways of giving subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. That's what this amendment is about. Anyone who cares about reducing carbon emissions and ensuring that taxpayer money is spent in the places where we will get the best bang for our buck in terms of energy and resource production should be supporting this amendment. Wasting Efic's resources and Efic funding to prop up the coal industry, to prop up the corrupt project that is Adani, is simply not good enough. We know that the Adani coalmine will only be able to go ahead if the Australian taxpayer funds a billion dollars and even then it's questionable. The banks won't bankroll it because it doesn't make economic sense. The planet would cook if we allowed the Adani mine to dig as much coal out of the ground as it wants to ship off and have burnt. We will not be able to fulfil the Paris Agreement; we will not be able to fulfil the very necessary requirements to decarbonise the economy, and all at the cost of the Australian taxpayer. The billon dollars that the dodgy, corrupt Adani company wants, the billion dollar mates-rates loan, should not go ahead. It's being facilitated via Efic and the NAIF, and it is a waste of Australian taxpayers' money. Most people out there are thinking, 'Hang on, we're doing it pretty tough. We've got low wages growth; we've got high unemployment; the cost of living continues to soar; the government says it has to cut funding to schools and hospitals. Meanwhile, we have this government agency handing over a billion dollars to Indian coal company Adani. Where are the government's priorities?' Well, the priorities are propping up and subsidising fossil fuels, propping up and subsidising Adani. Meanwhile, schools don't get the funding they need; hospitals don't get the funding they need. We have an NBN across this country that is not being rolled out as fast and as well as it should be because the government hasn't got the funding to do it. Meanwhile, Adani continues to laugh and know that it's pulled the wool over the eyes of the federal government. We're waiting for a decision on whether this loan will go ahead, because we now have the peculiar situation where the minister who is in charge of this sits in the other place—this is, of course, Minister Joyce—with a big cloud over his head. We don't even know if he's eligible to be in the parliament, let alone eligible to be a minister, yet this is the person who is responsible for signing off and handing over a billion dollars of Australian taxpayer money to Indian coal miner Adani. It's a waste of money and a decision of a minister who's not even legitimate. I can bet your bottom dollar, Chair, that, if Minister Joyce does sign off on this project and does give the taxpayer handout—the corporate welfare cheque to Adani—it will be challenged in the courts because not only is it economically irresponsible but also the minister in charge should not even be there. So this whole issue becomes even murkier and murkier. One of the things we can do today is stop Efic and, therefore, the NAIF from being able to continue to prop up, with public funds, the fossil-fuel industry. In particular, we can stop the NAIF from being able to fund the billion-dollar cheque to Adani. When you hear cries for the need for economic responsibility, mutual obligation and the crackdown and the kicking of people on welfare payments from this government, you've got to wonder what on earth is going on when we can't help unemployed people in this country to get enough income support so that they can get a job, but we're happy to hand out corporate welfare to one of the biggest, greediest and dodgiest mining companies in the world. That, of course, is the Adani Carmichael coalmine. I commend this amendment to the Senate and will be watching very closely to see who supports it. 11:11 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I've already addressed the issue of the Greens amendment on the removal of the FOI exemption. I will say, in relation to removing Efic's ability to support fossil fuels, that we will also be opposing this amendment. Efic provides support to Australian exporters where private financial institutions are unable or unwilling to support—in other words, where there is a gap. It is not for the purposes of subsidising. It would be an unprecedented step for a government to legislate to ban the financing of a product that, the last time I looked, is beneficial, legal and a major export earner for the country. Furthermore, the broad sweep of the language in the amendment, directly or indirectly, would even stop Efic financing SME-equipment suppliers to coal-export projects and potentially go much broader than that, so we will not be supporting this amendment. Let me make the point that issues to do with emissions and the control of greenhouse-gas emissions and the like, pursuant to our strong commitments under the Paris Agreement, are a separable issue to whether support is provided to a coal project within Australia. The other point I will make is that, when Efic finances overseas projects relating to coal or support of SME suppliers of coal, it adheres to OECD arrangements on export credit disciplines and on coal-fired power plants which came into effect in January this year and is bound by the OECD recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence. Efic also adheres to the Equator Principles, which is a globally recognised benchmark to manage environmental and social risk in projects. For these reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment or the other amendment. 11:13 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Can I address both sets of amendments, although I understand that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has yet to move the amendments on sheet 8207. The opposition will not be supporting either set of amendments. On sheet 8206, there are questions that go to the banning of the resources project's support. The definitions, frankly, as outlined in these amendments, that specifically refer directly or indirectly are far too broad. With regard to the impact, it would lead to a significant loss of jobs for Australian workers, and it would undermine supply-chain companies that are currently operating within the industry. They're operating in terms of the suppliers to the mining industry. It will also undermine professional services companies operating within the resources sector as well. So for either those engineering companies that supply the resources sector or the professional services companies that are currently within the remit of the ethics charter, it is inappropriate that they should be excluded from that. The current arrangements that Efic operates on were, in fact, outlined in a letter that former minister Andrew Robb distributed back in 2014, which I understand remains in force. It points out that Efic does not provide support for onshore resources projects and related infrastructure, given the private sector is active in that part of the market. In essence, the way Efic operates is that it provides finance where there is a gap—I think that's the word they use—in the market and so Efic is able to provide support for projects that involve suppliers to domestic resource projects that have an export component. However, that arrangement remains in force. We, the opposition, believe that strikes the right balance, where there is a market gap and where it helps to create Australian jobs. In regard to the second proposition by Senator Hanson-Young on FOI matters, we are more sympathetic. We understand the intention of the amendments, and there is always an amendment in regard to transparency when it comes to public funds. However, there is also a need to ensure that Efic is able to do its job properly, and there is a legitimate issue here about genuine commercial-in-confidence matters. Efic is not there to provide commercial advantage to others that are competing with its operations or those that are applying to it for support. It would be a ludicrous proposition if, under FOI, competitors for a particular project could secure commercially sensitive materials and then use them against a competitor. While we are sympathetic to the intention of providing more public information about the operations of public enterprise, we do not want to support the unintended consequences of crippling public enterprise—which would be the consequence of these amendments as they are put forward. We are more than happy to work with other parties in this chamber about ensuring greater transparency, but we will not be supporting these amendments. The CHAIR: The question is that items (1) to (3) on sheet 8206 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:22]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 37 NOES Abetz, E Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Burston, B Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Watt, M Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:25 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The remaining amendment is on sheet 8207. This is in relation to removing the exemption that Efic currently has in relation to freedom of information requests. I did speak about this at length during the second reading speech and in the questions to the minister previously at the committee stage. I just want to reiterate that this bill is asking the parliament to endorse expanding the powers, responsibilities and role of Efic; meanwhile, we know that there are big questions over Efic's ability to be straight and up-front with the parliament and the Australian people about the projects that it has already been funding and supporting. You'd think that, if the government honestly wanted to expand the role of Efic, they would get Efic's house in order first. They've missed the opportunity to do that. This amendment injects necessary transparency into this process. If we're going to have an expanded role then the public, the parliament and the taxpayers need to know what Efic is doing, what types of projects it is funding and how it is operating. I've heard the minister already today say that Efic has more transparency than a private bank. Okay: it's a Commonwealth agency, it is Australian taxpayers' money, so it should. But what we see in reality is that every time there are questions to Efic from this place, in Senate estimates and through other avenues available to us as senators, about what Efic has done—issues in relation to projects that it has supported, how it gets to the due diligence stage for projects such as the Adani coalmine and the associated rail line—Efic pulls the non-disclosure card. It continues to duck and weave on genuine questions that should be answered. If there's nothing to hide, what is the problem? While we've heard that there are genuine commercial-in-confidence issues in relation to companies, that is the excuse that always gets dragged out when government agencies don't want to be straight with the Australian people. That's what is constantly used as the catch-all excuse for not being transparent and for allowing secrecy to rule. It just doesn't cut it. These are billions of dollars that are not just there willy-nilly; this is the Australian people's money. They deserve to know. There needs to be an increased level of scrutiny and accountability, because these are public funds. Not only is Efic caught up in backing projects that have created instability in parts of the region, such as PNG or the South Pacific, in relation to Bougainville, and other areas but we also know that every time you ask Efic about why they made these decisions, what risk analysis they used, whether they considered the social, economic and political impacts, and how they missed that some of these terrible consequences would roll out in places like PNG, for example, in relation to the ExxonMobil project, you get nothing back. Efic don't want to talk about these things. They pull the 'we don't know and we can't tell you' card. We need to break open what is a secretive and what has become an incredibly opaque organisation. This is a public institution. They are using public funds and the voters have a right to know. What we now see, as Efic moves into funding domestic based projects, such as in relation to the Adani Carmichael mine, is that the public have an increased desire to know why those decisions are being made. Who is making those decisions? What due diligence is being done? And yet, over and over again, we get nothing out of the bureaucrats who sit within the Efic framework, because of the ridiculously strict exemption in relation to freedom of information. We need to reform this. I'm not, as a matter of principle, opposed at all to the original intentions for what Efic was meant to do, but I fear that Efic has moved substantially away from its intended mandate. It has done that under a cloud of secrecy and it now has an opaque framework. Australian taxpayers have every right to be concerned. Of course, it suits other government agencies, such as the NAIF, to be able to rely on the secret nature of Efic so that they don't have to maintain reasonable levels of transparency and respond to reasonable questions, whether they are questions from senators in this place, members from the other place, or, indeed, the public. We know that the NAIF has used the cover of Efic secrecy to not be straight about what is going on and why decisions are being made. No-one has been able to articulate why on earth Adani is even being considered for a billion-dollar public subsidy, when the Adani company themselves have said they don't need it; it's just that it's available. That means they should not meet the criteria. Why are they still sitting there like a puppy dog on the lap, begging for loose change—loose change that is costing the Australian taxpayer a billion dollars? I saw the Prime Minister in his press conference just now refer to the fact that burning coal has never been so profitable. That's what the Prime Minister has just said today: burning coal has never been so profitable. I guess if you're funding and subsidising the coal industry with billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer money, anything could become profitable. What a load of gobbledygook. This government is so desperate to prop up the fossil fuel industry and the coal industry in this country that they not only allow Australian taxpayer money to roll out the door; they know that the public won't be happy, so they do it through this secretive, opaque mechanism. We need to blow this open. I think it's ridiculous that the government comes here asking this place to give Efic more powers yet less accountability, and makes no effort to clean up the lack of transparency that we all know is rank within the current Efic set-up. I commend the amendment to the House. The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, you need to move item (1) on sheet 8207. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I move the amendment on sheet 8207 which I have just referred to: (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add: Freedom of Information Act 1982 8 Division 1 of Part II of Schedule 2 Omit "Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, in relation to documents concerning anything done by it under Part 4 or 5 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991". 11:35 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I indicate that my colleagues and I strongly support this amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young in relation to FOI. I know the minister expressed a concern that the ability to FOI Efic will compromise confidentiality inherent in banking. Whilst I appreciate the need for confidentiality in business where appropriate, I point out that such information is protected by exemptions in the FOI Act, namely section 47G, and other exemptions in the FOI Act will also apply. So, noting the protection that the FOI Act affords businesses, I and my colleagues will vote in favour of the Greens amendment, which promotes greater transparency. The CHAIR: The question is that item (1) on sheet 8207 moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

The committee divided. [11:40]
(The Chair—Senator Lines

12 AYES Di Natale, R Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 31 NOES Abetz, E Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Carr, KJ Duniam, J Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J (teller) McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Polley, H Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Third Reading 6463 11:43 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Abetz, E Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Carr, KJ Duniam, J Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Polley, H Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Watt, M Williams, JR (teller) 13 NOES Bernardi, C Di Natale, R Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 6464

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6464 11:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise today to speak about the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017. As senators may be aware, as it stands, pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for veterans, members of the Defence Force and their families are provided for under three separate legislative acts. These are the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986, called the VEA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, called SRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation Act 2004, called MRCA. The VEA primarily provides benefits and entitlements for those who undertook service in wartime and certain operational deployments, as well as certain peacetime service between 7 December 1972 and 30 June 2004. For peacetime service eligibility, a member who had not completed a qualifying period of three years service prior to 7 April 1994 is not covered, unless they were medically discharged. British nuclear test defence service during the 1950s and 1960s in Australia is also covered when relevant criteria are met. If a veteran suffers an injury or disease arising out of, or aggravated by, a period of full-time service while they were covered under the VEA, they may be entitled to a disability pension and medical treatment. They may also be eligible for compensation under the SRCA for the same disability, with compensation offset against their pension. The second piece of legislation, the SRCA, provides coverage for illness, injury and death suffered as a result of peacetime and peacekeeping service from 3 January 1949 to 30 June 2004 and for certain periods of operational service between 7 April 1994 and 30 June 2004. Coverage under SRCA is essentially linked to peacetime ADF service between 3 January 1949 and 30 June 2004, with no coverage of ADF service prior to 3 January 1949 or any period of operational service prior to 7 April 1994. The final piece of legislation, MRCA, covers members who served on or after 1 July 2004. MRCA provides rehabilitation and compensation coverage for warlike, non-warlike and peacetime service. The SRCA and MRCA are more like modern workers compensation legislation and provide rehabilitation and compensation coverage for military service related to injuries, illness or death. This legislation proposes to remove all the Defence Force elements from the SRCA and create an exact replica called the DRCA which will only apply to Defence Force members. The creation of this act will also bring all legislation relating to veterans affairs under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As it stands, both the VEA and the MRCA are in the remit of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; however, the SRCA, as it applies to the ADF, is part of a larger act which covers all employees of the Australian government. Consequently, this means that the act sits with the Minister for Employment. When the MRCA took effect, responsibility for determining and managing defence-related claims under the SRCA was given to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the MRCC, by virtue of the addition of part 11 to the SRCA. Essentially, while the decisions about compensation and rehabilitation fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the legislation itself sits with a different minister. This new legislation is designed to fix this. In addition, the bill makes a number of minor language amendments to the DRCA and amends the SRCA to remove cover for members of the Defence Force and their dependants. The implementation of the DRCA will provide for a complete separation of the legislative framework for defence-related claims from the Comcare scheme under the SRCA and will provide the Minister for Veteran's Affairs with the responsibility of all three of the separate compensation acts that cover Defence Force members. Given the complexity of the bill, Labor supported the referral of this legislation to the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to consider the detail of the bill. The committee received a number of submissions and held a public hearing to work through concerns of interested parties. The DRCA should be viewed as a snapshot in time, an exact replica of the Defence Force elements of the SRCA, as of the day the DRCA is enacted. Given the complexity of the SRCA, which has been amended 68 times since its inception, there was a considerable amount of concentrated effort to ensure the DRCA was the exact replica of the legislation and nothing had been inadvertently omitted. An example of this work relates to the functions of Comcare in relation to rehabilitation and acting quickly to minimise the duration and the severity of injuries. This was also raised by Senator Lambie during the committee process. On reading the explanatory memorandum of the bill, it would appear that section 69, which deals with Comcare and claims, had not come across to the new bill. While this is technically correct, section 69 of the SRCA has not applied to veterans since the insertion of section 142 when the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission was created, which then became responsible for compensation claims and rehabilitation. Section 142 has been duplicated by the DRCA, and through a number of other sections in both the DRCA and the MRCA, the commitment to determining claims, which includes rehabilitation, quickly and accurately remains. We're satisfied that the element that currently applies to veterans is maintained under the DRCA. However, Labor encourages the government to consider making the pathway that leads to this conclusion clearer into the future. There were a number of other technical concerns raised during this process. I would like to acknowledge the very diligent work of all parties involved, in particular Labor's terrific shadow minister in the other place, Amanda Rishworth, in identifying areas where the legislation appeared to have not been duplicated across in its entirety. Labor has worked through each of these concerns with stakeholders and the government and is confident that the issues raised have now been addressed. However, due to the complexity of the legislation, under advice from the Australian Government Solicitor a Henry VIII clause was added to provide a remedy for any unforeseen adverse consequences that could arise from the unique manner in which the DRCA was enacted. The government has been clear that the intention is not for the clause to be utilised. It is only there as a failsafe in case something has been overlooked in the process that would leave a particular veteran worse off. Henry VIII clauses essentially enable a government to make regulations with the power to modify the act, which are then introduced to the parliament as disallowable instruments. In the DRCA, a condition has been added to the Henry VIII clause that requires any regulations made under this provision to act in a purely beneficial way, for the benefit of the veteran, to deal with any anomalies that may arise where there is retrospective application of the DRCA. This condition states: Before the Governor-General makes regulations under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person (except the Commonwealth) is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act. As such, it's clear that in the unlikely event of this clause being utilised it can only be when someone has been made worse off by the creation of the DRCA and only to the benefit of the individual, not of the government. This is a very important condition, and it is the reason that Labor is in a position to support the inclusion of this clause. In addition, it is important to note that any regulations brought in under this provision would be disallowable instruments and be brought before both houses of parliament and sit for 15 days of parliament before they come into operation. While this gives some assurances, concerns have been raised about notification of these instruments. Although they are disallowable instruments, this rests on interested parties becoming aware of the tabling of these documents. Consequently, Labor senators recommend that section 121B be amended to include a consultative element. This amendment would essentially require the minister to be satisfied that appropriate consultation had been undertaken with relevant parties, including disclosure of the proposed regulations. The government has declined to accept this proposal, stating that the intention of the clause is to quickly provide relief to an individual who has been made worse off by the creation of the DRCA. The government argues that the inclusion of a requirement to consult would result in delaying the provision of relief to the individual. It is worth remembering that in the unlikely event that the clause is utilised there would be an individual veteran who has been made worse off for the creation of this bill, who has had to have this acknowledged by the department, and regulations drafted, approved and tabled. To delay them, the provision of the relief is unfair, particularly given in this circumstance. If the DRCA had not been created, there would have been no delay and they would have received the assistance immediately. In the event that this clause is utilised, we call on the department to exhaust all avenues to ensure that anyone else who would benefit from the changes is made aware of the regulations. The government has agreed to do this, at Labor's request, and is committed to ensuring that everything possible will be done by the department to locate and contact any person who would be affected by a DRCA Henry VIII clause. Labor supports the inclusion of this clause, without the requirement to consult prior to making the regulations, for one reason only: to ensure that there is no delay correcting the issue that has come about due to the creation of the bill and is impacting a particular veteran. Significant concerns were also raised in relation to the consultation conducted by the department in relation to this and other legislation during the committee process. While the government stated that the development of a standalone act for the ADF members and veterans was announced two years ago, with consultation continuing during this period predominantly with the ex-service round table, it conceded that the ex-service round table members were not able to view the bill until it was introduced into parliament last year. However, the president of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Service Men and Women stated they considered the bill was not really brought to the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table's attention as being a piece of legislation which was due to be passed. In addition, members of the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations highlighted that there is a lack of resources for the ex-service organisations to be able to assess and analyse legislation. Their representatives noted that their organisation and its partners are voluntary associations and as such have limited access to personal and financial resources. As members may be aware, there have been a number of Senate inquiries into veterans affairs in recent months, along with the high-profile Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. This has stretched voluntary organisations' capacity to respond to and critically examine new legislation. This issue was raised by a number of submitters who were concerned with the speed at which this legislation appeared to be tabled and required feedback. While this legislation may have been broadly discussed some time ago, the evidence provided indicated that consultation was neither thorough enough nor wide enough to capture ESOs and other interested parties. As such, the committee concluded there was room for improvement in the way in which that DVA consults on changes to legislation and engages with veteran communities. The committee raised concerns about DVA's current consultation and engagement practices in relation to proposed legislative changes, noting that, while this is partly due to the limited resources of ESOs to examine legislation, ultimately it is up to the DVA to improve this relationship. This issue was regularly raised by veterans and is an area of deep concern. Consultation on these issues is vital not only for capturing the lived experiences of those working through the system but also for preventing unnecessary angst or concern. Effective engagement is fundamental and is an area which the department needs to address as soon as possible. The committee also highlighted another issue, which has been raised with me a number of times—that is, the adversarial approach of DVA towards some veteran advocacy groups and lawyers acting on behalf of veterans. This adversarial culture in the department is something Labor sought to resolve by committing, prior to the election, to undertaking the first principles reviews of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This review would be based on a set of agreed-upon first principles, would examine the department and would seek to rectify administrative, governance and process failings to ensure the department is able to meet existing and future challenges in a clear and efficient manner. Most importantly, this review would help to establish trust in DVA for the veterans and their representative organisations. It would ensure we have a system in place which works for the people who need it the most and puts our veterans first. The committee recommended that the Department of Veterans' Affairs conduct the review into its consultation and engagement practices, in order to receive informed critical feedback on proposed legislative amendments, rapidly respond to concerns raised by the veteran community and increase the understanding in the veteran community of proposed legislative changes. We understand the government has accepted this recommendation and has undertaken to review the DVA's consultation processes. This inquiry, along with a recently completed inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, has clearly highlighted that there is a disconnect between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the ex-service community. The Senate committee process also highlighted the anxiety veterans, interested parties and the ex-service community feel about future changes to the SRCA, particularly with regard to the alignment of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It is generally acknowledged that legislation in this space is complex, with each act operating slightly differently. There is the desire in the ex-service community to see this process made easier for veterans and their advocates to administer. This desire is equally measured by concern that, with the harmonisation of the provisions, the lowest common denominator will become the standard. DVA indicated there will be appropriate consultation with the veteran and defence communities on any areas of potential alignment between DRCA and the MRCA. While the assurance is welcome, this consultation as undertaken continues to raise questions. Broad consultation is important to ensure that veterans and their advocates are aware of proposed changes and are able to provide detailed feedback. Labor senators continue to hold concerns about the future alignment of legislation and urge the minister to clarify the details of the proposed forms to provide certainty to ADF members and veterans. We concur with this request. Labor is supportive of changes which make it easier for veterans to navigate the system, however not at the expense of the entitlements and support structures. Given assurances that no veterans would be worse off for these changes, Labor offers our support to the legislation. 12:10 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania In 2015, the Greens—myself—initiated the first Senate inquiry into veterans' mental health, which I understand Senator Lambie and others in this chamber also participated in. That inquiry went over nearly nine months and went all around the country. We heard some evidence and put in place some recommendations. I am glad there has been an additional Senate inquiry into veteran suicide. Senator Lambie interjecting— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I'll take that interjection. It is a sad fact that a number of recommendations of numerous Senate inquiries haven't been taken up, including this one. This one is particularly acute and very sensitive. I am glad that Senator Lambie hasn't allowed the Senate to take its foot off the proverbial throat of DVA and let these issues go unresolved, and I am glad that we have some good legislation here in front of us today. I know from that inquiry and from hearing evidence all around the country, and I also know from my father, who is a Vietnam veteran, and my godfather and many of their circle of friends and the advocates that I know well in Tasmania who work at the RSL and work with DVA, that this area is very sensitive. It is extremely complex, but it's also very sensitive. That makes it a potential powder keg if we don't get it right. So I think it is important to point out that this bill today is a response to the overwhelming complexity of the veterans' entitlement system. It will replicate the existing Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which applies to all ADF members and veterans with service prior to 1 July 2004, so that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has full control of the act that currently sits with the Minister for Employment. As it currently stands, as Senator Farrell pointed out, there are three acts which govern pensions, compensation, rehabilitation treatment and other benefits for veterans, ADF members and their families. These are the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, or VEA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as SRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as MRCA. These acts cover different types of service in different periods of time, and often veterans and ADF personnel are subject to multiple acts. May I say, also from my experience, that this probably biased them towards using one or two legal firms who specialise in this area and know these areas very well. While they do a very important job, I think it's quite important that we still move to simplify the legislation so that it's clearer for all stakeholders. According to the government this bill will pave the way for reforms that are intended to make life easier for those seeking access to entitlements. It will also allow the minister to recognise the unique nature of military service that may not be appropriate for civilians under the act. In creating this bill, the government has included section 121B, also known as the Henry VIII clause, which will ensure that no person is worse off under the act. Let me address a few reasons the veterans' entitlement system is a mess. It is a Byzantine system that is currently very difficult for veterans to use. I think the fact that it's a mess is something that all sides of politics agree on. The overlapping legislation governing compensation and rehabilitation is a burden on veterans, on their advocates, many of them volunteers, and even on the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself and, by default, the Department of Defence, which also liaises with the veterans' affairs department on a number of these very sensitive, important issues. Veterans face a complex system where, for example, injuries suffered by the same person at different points in time or during different types of service may be covered by different compensation legislation. During the recent inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, Colonel David Jamison from the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations told the committee: … we believe a significant factor contributing to the problem lies in the legislative framework on which support to veterans is based. The three rehabilitation and compensation schemes result in a very complicated system that sets up an adversarial claims process and a bureaucratic structure that many see as complicated and unfriendly towards veterans seeking support. I will underline that word 'adversarial', because nearly all of the evidence I've heard in my five years in this place, including three years covering this portfolio, is that it is adversarial. Certainly Senator Lambie has been a very vocal proponent of solving that problem. It is abundantly clear from social media groups and from talks with veterans of more recent conflicts that they feel alienated and see the system as biased against them. The veteran suicide inquiry also raised concerns about the statements of principles which are used to determine whether or not a person is eligible for compensation. Witnesses testified that many veterans believe these statements of principles are not up to date, are not flexible, are too complex for non-expert people to use with ease and are designed to hinder rather than assist veterans. The case of Army veteran Jesse Bird is a tragic illustration of the impacts our current compensation system has on those seeking assistance. Many in this chamber would have read that Jesse took his own life just a few months ago, weeks after losing a claim for permanent impairment he had been pursuing for years. He served in Afghanistan, where he had been shot at and exposed to bomb blasts from IEDs. He had a close friend, Private Benjamin Ranaudo, who was killed by one of these blasts. On his return to Australia, Jesse suffered from PTSD, associated anxiety and depression and was unable to hold down a job. Although the DVA accepted his conditions were caused by his military service, it said his condition was not unstable or severe enough to warrant permanent impairment. I understand the minister has met with the Bird family recently and that the department is conducting an inquiry into Jesse's case and his death. We must make sure that Jesse's situation doesn't arise again. The problems with veterans aren't just limited to compensation. We heard during the inquiry into the digital readiness bill earlier this year that veterans face unreasonably long wait periods to be reimbursed the costs of any claims. On top of this, rates of entitlement are inconsistent and arbitrary. Application and assessment processes are a crazy maze. For many veterans, the bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is a barrier to getting what they are entitled to. All parties—and I think this is actually one issue that does bring together all political sides in this place—should be working together with the veteran community to create a better system for those who serve Australia. The Greens in response to this mess have consistently said we would undertake a root-and-branch review of the veterans' entitlements system. This review would determine whether current entitlements are sufficient and whether current eligibility criteria are fair, including access to health cards, disability pensions, housing and superannuation arrangements. We have been pushing this since my predecessor Penny Wright from South Australia had the veterans portfolio. My former colleague Senator Ludlam did some great work around nuclear veterans and worked with Senator Lambie on getting them access to the gold card. The review would also recommend a redesign of the entitlements process to make it more legible and accessible and recommend an overhaul of the delivery of support services. Complaints about DVA are still on the rise, which is an indicator that the system is still failing. The review of service delivery should consider assigning each veteran a liaison officer, which was one of the recommendations of the first Senate inquiry into veterans' mental health, to act as a single point of contact to navigate the system. As Senator Lambie mentioned earlier, the recommendations of that inquiry were well over 12 months ago and it is disappointing that that simple solution still hasn't been implemented. The Greens also support recommendations of the inquiry into veterans' suicides that the government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. Given the well-founded concerns about the current compensation system, the Greens will support this bill. We want things made easier for veterans. We support laying the groundwork for a simpler set of military compensation and rehabilitation arrangements. However, we don't want simplification to come if it means outcomes of the lowest common denominator for veterans. We want to make sure that in making the legislative schemes more accessible for veterans no veteran or ADF member will be worse off. For this reason we support the government's inclusion of the so-called Henry VIII clause, which was added to make sure that if there were any adverse consequences for a veteran from the passage of this bill the situation could be remedied. The clause will allow the government to make regulations, as a disallowable instrument, to modify the act introduced to parliament. The minister has clearly stated that he does not intend for the clause to be used. It was introduced as a back-up on the off-chance that a veteran finds himself or herself disadvantaged. The government has enshrined in this bill that the Henry VIII clause can only be used to advantage veterans. Section 121B (2) states: Before the Governor-General makes regulations under 23 subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person (except 1 the Commonwealth) is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act. We acknowledge that some veterans and their representative organisations have raised concerns that changes to the act will pass through disallowable instruments without adequate consultation. I understand that Senator Lambie shares these concerns and will move an amendment to section 121B. However, the Greens believe that the protections enshrined in the act will protect veterans from an erosion of their entitlements. We are also keen to make sure that there is no undue delay to any veteran who finds himself or herself worse off and the insertion of additional consultation requirements around each disallowable instrument may cause undue distress to individual veterans. During the inquiry into this bill there were a number of serious concerns raised regarding the Department of Veterans' Affairs' lack of consultation. For example, even though the government indicated that discussion with the community about this bill began two years ago, Ex-Service Organisation Round Table members were not able to view the bill until it was introduced to parliament late last year. This meant that veterans' legitimate queries around losing access to Comcare and favourable precedents set by previous legal decisions were not addressed and were allowed to fester. It also contributed to concerns that the government will try to whittle down entitlements, by stealth, in the future. We hope the government has learnt from this experience and will conduct exhaustive consultation if and when it plans to align aspects of this bill with the MRCA. The Greens will certainly be working to make sure the principle of 'no veterans disadvantaged' is maintained and I am confident that each senator in this chamber will do the same. In conclusion, the Greens are supportive of the positive steps to make life easier for veterans. We support reform to simplify and harmonise different legislation and claims processes for ADF members and veterans. We acknowledge concerns raised regarding the inclusion of the Henry VIII clause, but the legislation clearly states that this clause is designed to ensure that no veteran is worse off—rather than being a sneaky attempt to erode entitlements. We will, therefore, support the bill and look forward to further discussions on how we can improve the entitlement system for veterans. The Greens, like every political party and everyone in this chamber, want to support veterans. It is essential because of the service they have provided to our country and because we have always wanted to highlight the issues of veterans, be they physical, mental or otherwise. It is a cost of service, a cost of military conflict and, ultimately, a cost of war. While we are sending our Australian personnel—our children, our uncles, our wives, our partners—off to overseas deployments, Australians must understand that the costs of those deployments go beyond military spending or unfortunate physical injuries or, sadly, deaths and casualties. When veterans, soldiers or other ADF personnel come back from their service, are discharged and go through these systems, the costs are compounded by a system that doesn't work. That cost has, sadly, been reflected in high suicide rates and more cases of mental illnesses. Australians need to understand that, if these issues aren't dealt with properly, this adds to the cost of service, and it's a reflection of the cost that war and conflict has on our nation. 12:25 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill. I should begin by saying that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. When the bill was debated in the House of Representatives last month, the shadow minister for defence, Mr Richard Marles, said: Given their assurances— By the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Dan Tehan— that no veterans will be worse off for these changes, Labor offer our support to this legislation. This reflects Labor's view, which I certainly share, that, wherever possible, legislation affecting our national defence, the members of our Defence Forces or our Defence veterans should be considered on a bipartisan basis. It was in that spirit that the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Labor supported that reference and took part in the committee's review of the bill, which addressed some of the concerns raised by some members of the veterans community about the first iteration of the bill. We are pleased that the current version has remedied some of those concerns. Pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for members of the Defence Force, their families and ADF veterans are currently provided under three separate acts—the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill before the Senate will create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, to be known as the DRC Act, which will be a re-enacted version of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 1988—the SRC Act. This new act will apply only to members of the Defence Force and their dependants. As a consequence of that change, the bill will also amend the SRC Act to remove cover for members of the Defence Force and their dependants from that act. The bill also amends a number of other acts to bring them into alignment with the changes made by the bill. The purpose of the bill is to create a Defence-specific act which applies only to members of the Defence Force and their dependants. It will place all current veterans legislation under the control of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. We think it is entirely reasonable that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs should be responsible for all matters regarding veterans. This bill will apply in relation to injury, disease, death and loss or damage sustained through employment in the Defence Force when that occurred before the commencement of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act on 1 July 2004. Defence Force members and veterans with conditions linked to service from 1 July 2004 onwards will continue to be covered by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. In his second reading speech in November last year, Mr Tehan assured the Defence and veteran communities that eligibility and benefits under the standalone act would be the same as those currently available to serving and former ADF members under the existing SRCA and that there were no other changes to benefits or entitlements. Mr Tehan described the bill as: … a foundational step towards broader reform being undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to significantly improve services for veterans and their families … I certainly hope that is true. It's been evident for some time that there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst Defence veterans about the operation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and, particularly, its adversarial attitude to claims made by veterans and their families. This was really brought home to me through my participation in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's inquiry into suicide by veterans and former Defence personnel, which I spoke about in the chamber last month. Like other committee members, I was shocked to hear Defence veterans say that they would rather fight the Taliban than the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It's very difficult to get specific figures about the number of claims for post-traumatic stress disorder and others, for example, alcohol dependency, but DVA has accepted 1,590 claims for PTSD and 543 claims for alcohol dependence abuse from veterans of the Afghan war. There's no figure on the accepted number of claims which include permanent impairment. I want to go to some of the statements that came up post the Senate committee's report. The chair of that committee, Senator Gallacher, said: Modern veterans were more likely to die from suicide and self-harm than overseas operations service. He also was quoted as saying: Unfortunately, the effort to address suicide in the veteran community is likely to be a struggle that has no end point. Speaking on ABC Radio, the defence minister, Senator Payne, said that the government was making significant progress. I think everyone in this chamber would agree with her statement about veterans—we know that they are overwhelmingly well-skilled, highly talented, extraordinarily strong, contributing Australians. And we want to make sure we can support them in their engagement for whatever future they choose. I want to talk to you about an organisation called VOTSA. VOTSA stands for Veterans off the Streets Association. It provides crisis accommodation. On their website, they have a quote from Argentinian writer Jose Narovsky, who said: In war, there are no unwounded soldiers. Currently, the director of that organisation, Ms Hudson, who came to see me a couple of weeks ago, is trying to be granted a lease over an unoccupied former aged-care facility in Euroa in north-east Victoria. She's having a lot of difficult. They have very few funds. What they do have is from donations. The fact that we have organisations that are trying to provide crisis accommodation because there are veterans living on the streets is ridiculous. I have sent a letter to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, both Commonwealth and Victoria, and I would hope that they will support Ms Hudson in her endeavours. But we shouldn't be reliant on the goodwill of organisations. It should actually be something that the Commonwealth itself looks after and that the department itself has regard to. Going back to the committee report, much of the evidence that we heard related to veterans' experiences with the department. The committee made recommendations concerning the streamlining of the administration of the department, reducing the backlog of clients and increasing the capability and training of staff at the department to deal with mental-health conditions and complex health concerns. The committee members will be very interested to hear from the minister about how he plans to go about implementing the recommendations of the committee's report. I hope that the reforms in this bill will serve to make that process easier by streamlining the administration of Defence benefits and bringing all matters relating to Defence veterans under the control of the minister. We should understand that these problems are going to get worse over the coming decades. There are 30,000 veterans of World War II who are still alive, and they are all in advanced years. Our Vietnam veterans, numbering more than 60,000, are now entering their 70s and the demands they make on the Department of Veterans' Affairs will increase. We also have to remember that, as a result of our deployments in the Gulf, Iraq, East Timor, the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan, over 50,000 Australians have seen active service overseas since 2000. Since some of these commitments are ongoing and since there are likely to be more Defence deployments over the coming years, the number of Defence veterans will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. We should not assume that because these veterans are still relatively young that they will not be making demands on our system of veterans' benefits, nor should we be limiting the benefits simply because of the number of deployments and the number of Australian service men and women who have served our country. As Senator Whish-Wilson said, if we're going to send people overseas, if we're going to have them serve to defend, then we must be responsible and return that favour and defend them. Our committee was made very aware of the serious mental health issues faced by many younger veterans, and Senator Whish-Wilson raised the case of Jesse Bird—I do understand the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans' Affairs has recently met with his family. Unresolved mental health issues are among the main causes of suicide for younger veterans. The committee's inquiry concluded that there needed to be some major reforms to the department and the way it operates if it is to be made fit for purpose, as it faces these new challenges. Last month, I described the committee's recommendations in my speech on the inquiry into veteran and ex-service personnel suicide rates, but I will mention some of them again now. They are relevant to this debate because the main purpose of this bill, as I understand it, is to bring all veterans affairs issues under the control of the minister, and to rationalise and streamline the administration of veterans benefits. It should make it easier for the minister to implement the committee's recommendations. Firstly, we recommended that the government continue to support and to fund the veteran-centric reform program in the department. We recommended targeted programs addressing issues in the transition of defence members to civilian life, and more appropriate interactions with mental health service providers for veterans with mental health conditions. We recommended that the government commission an independent study into the mental health impacts of Veterans' Affairs claims processes and that all transitioning defence members should be provided with a DVA white card—this was a major point of contention in the evidence the committee heard—to facilitate access to health care, to provide identification as a veteran and to aid in data collection. The committee was concerned to learn that we don't even know how many defence veterans there are in Australia, because of inadequate data collection. We did hear at estimates recently that the department is undergoing some changes to its IT system, so we'll ask again at upcoming estimates how that's proceeding. In relation to the transition to civilian life, we recommended that there be an option in the Career Transition Assistance Scheme that would allow veterans to undertake a period of work experience with an outside employer. We recommended that the Australian Public Service Commission conduct a review into mechanisms to support the public sector employment of veterans. Again, there are some organisations that are conducting this work, but this is only because people have chosen to get together and do it. Janine Kirk, who is the chair of the Prince's Trust, runs a program with RMIT in Melbourne, where veterans can go and do some study at RMIT and then they are placed with employers. But this shouldn't be an ad hoc approach—this should be a systemic approach to help veterans gain employment and transition properly and safely and healthily to civilian life. We also recommended that the government improve access to support services by supporting the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to create and maintain a public database of support services. In the longer term, the committee recommended that the legal and administrative complexity of the legislative framework be addressed through a review by the Productivity Commission, with a view to simplifying the system. I acknowledge that this bill goes some way towards meeting the obvious need to rationalise the administration of veterans affairs, which is one reason why we on this side are supporting it, but a wider review of the way the system operates is still warranted. The committee also recommended that a bureau of veterans advocates be established, modelled on the Bureau of Pensions Advocates in Canada, to advocate on behalf of veterans in their interactions with the department. The minister should use the greater control given to him by this bill to carry out these recommendations in the Senate committee's report. I will be looking to him for a commitment to do that. One of the things we learnt about in the course of our inquiry was the fragmented state of the veteran community. The days when the RSL could speak for all veterans and had a close relationship with the minister and with the department are long gone. There are now a variety of voices speaking on behalf of defence members, defence families, and defence veterans, and not always in a coordinated way. This has made the process of consultation with defence and veteran communities more difficult. Senator Farrell also spoke about the adversarial nature of some of the interactions, and I will go to that a little later, but a mechanism such as a bureau of veterans advocates would make it easier for the department to know what the various groups of veterans in the community want and need. This problem was identified when this bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The committee identified a number of concerns in relation to the way in which consultation is undertaken by the department. The committee's report expressed concern about the department's: … current consultation and engagement practices in relation to proposed legislative changes. They suggested this might be due in part to: … limited resources available to ex-service organisations to assess legislative proposals and provide informed feedback. The committee did express concern about the department's: … adversarial relationship with some veterans' advocates … and lawyers acting on behalf of veterans. The committee stated that in their view the department should be: … seeking out and actively engaging with those persons who are best informed and capable of providing analysis of proposed legislation. The committee acknowledged the difficulties involved in consultation with a variety of veteran advocacy groups, but also said that the department needed to take responsibility for improving its relationship with the veteran community. This adversarial culture in the department was something that Labor sought to resolve by committing, prior to the election, to undertaking a first principles review of Veterans' Affairs. This review would be based on a set of agreed-upon first principles, would examine the department and would seek to rectify administrative, governance and process failings to ensure the department is able to meet existing and future challenges in a clear and efficient manner. Most importantly, this review would help to re-establish trust in DVA for the veterans and their representative organisations. It would ensure that we have a system in place which works for the people who need it the most and puts our veterans first. It also brings to mind that Commonwealth departments and agencies are subject to model litigant rules. I wonder whether that has been fully explored. The committee therefore recommended that the department conduct a review and receive feedback. I hope the minister takes on board these recommendations, which arose from a bipartisan committee process. Finally, I want to say something about section 121B of the bill, the so-called 'Henry VIII' clause. Senator Whish-Wilson has outlined his party's position, but I understand and foreshadow that Senator Lambie will be moving some amendments. Both as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian, I have serious concerns about the use of this mechanism. A 'Henry VIII' clause allows a minister to make a regulation which would retroactively change the bill that parliament has passed. I won't go into the history of Henry VIII's changing of acts of parliament. The government has assured us that retrospective legislation under new section 121B is intended to operate: … in a purely beneficial way to deal with any anomalies that may arise where there is a retrospective application of the DRC Act which will need to refer to the earlier version of the SRC Act that applied at the time for which eligibility is being determined. The section seeks to limit the use of this power of retrospective regulation. It says: The Minister must seek only to make the regulations to protect the entitlements of those covered by the DRC Act and to ensure that "no person is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act". We are further assured that: This clause is expressly for the benefit of those persons covered by the DRC Act and is not to be read to provide any advantage to the Commonwealth. Again, it does make me think of the model litigant rules. I am aware that the High Court in ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel[2014] unanimously upheld the validity of a similar clause inserted into the New South Wales Workers Compensation Act, so I don't dispute that the government has the power to legislate in this way. I am also aware that the parliament has the power to disallow any regulation made under this section. The parliament has consistently rejected the idea of retrospective legislation, and I think that is a position that we should stick to. Our legal system is, after all, based on precedent. With that caveat, I repeat that the opposition supports this bill. I hope that it will go some way towards meeting the many concerns that veterans have raised about the functioning of our system. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 6477 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Spinal Muscular Atrophy 6477 12:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I rise to bring the attention of the chamber to a cruel disease called spinal muscular atrophy or SMA. It's a relatively unknown illness, despite it being the No. 1 genetic killer of infants under the age of two in Australia. It is largely unknown because babies born with it rarely live beyond their second birthday. I'd like to share with the chamber the story of one couple who have had their world shattered by this illness. Their names are Rachel and John, and all members of the parliament would have received a letter from them introducing you to their young daughter, Mackenzie, who suffers from SMA. Mackenzie was the couple's first child and they told me they couldn't have been any happier. But, shortly after, their world was turned upside down. At 10 weeks of age, their little baby daughter was diagnosed as having SMA type 1. This disease is a neuromuscular disorder characterised by the loss of motor neurons and progressive muscle wasting, often leading to death. It manifests over a wide range of severity, affecting both infants and adults, and is broadly divided into five types in accordance with age or onset of symptoms or from the highest attained milestone of motor development. In the case of Mackenzie, she was diagnosed with having the most common form of SMA, which is type 1. Type 1 is terminal. The prognosis for Mackenzie is devastating, cruel and quite unforgiving. The average life expectancy for infants with the condition is nine months at best. In December last year, a clinical trial was commenced in Australia of a drug that, in some cases, can delay the onset of symptoms. It has also shown itself to be a big step forward in medical advancement and is currently being assessed by the TGA. However, it is not a cure and the prognosis for little Mackenzie remains the same. Rachel described to me how she felt as the medical expert advised them that Mackenzie had a terminal illness for which there was no known cure and that her life expectancy was likely to be less than one year. Rachel described how, as their world fell away, everything went blurry for her. Sounds muffled and she felt like she was collapsing. She remembers looking at her husband, John, and saying, 'What just happened?' For most of us, it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how such a devastating and shattering experience would feel—from being on such a positive high with the birth of their daughter to being told that their precious little baby will die, perhaps before her first birthday, and that there's nothing she or they can do to change the situation. As I've said, the disease is a cruel and unforgiving condition. From planning and dreaming for the future of their daughter, their time is now spent arranging and giving the best palliative care for Mackenzie. In Rachel's words: 'I cannot adequately express the love we feel for Mackenzie. Rather than dreaming of Mackenzie's future and imagining all the beautiful experiences of life that lay before her, we are now going to have to watch our baby slowly lose muscle movement, lose the ability to feed and swallow and, finally, lose the ability to breathe.' Before Mackenzie's diagnosis, Rachel and John had never heard of SMA. Neither had anyone amongst their families or friends. They were soon to learn that it is the No. 1 genetic killer of children under the age of two years. It begs the question: how is it that no-one has heard of this disorder? One in 35 people in Australia are carriers of SMA. If two carriers have a baby, there is a one-in-four chance of their baby having SMA. These statistics are simply astonishing. This rare neuromuscular disorder is clearly not so rare. Rachel and John undertook all the tests offered to them before and during pregnancy, including genetic testing for more common genetic illnesses, such as Down syndrome. But they were not offered genetic testing to check whether either was an SMA carrier prior to conception. In most cases, such genetic testing is offered only if you have a family history. But four out of five children born with a genetic disorder do not have a family history of the disorder. Today SMA is not curable, but it is 100 per cent preventable. A couple planning for a family today can find out if they are carriers through having a blood test during the pregnancy screening. Not only can this testing be undertaken before conception, but tests can also be undertaken for more severe genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and fragile X. I'm instructed that this simple test to protect our community obviously only works as a prevention if people know about it. Rachel and John are both proud to be federal police officers. They are made of fairly stern stuff. When confronted with such a personal tragedy, in their grief they looked to ways to help others and to turn their suffering to something of a benefit for others. They know they cannot change the outcome for Mackenzie, but perhaps their campaign can prevent others from going through such pain and suffering. Accordingly, while caring for Mackenzie they also make the time to push for greater awareness of SMA and increased access to carrier testing. It is through this initiative that I got to know Rachel and John and to know about their story and their aims. When I met Rachel and John, I asked them what they were hoping to achieve and how we could help them. As Rachel explained to me, they have three main aims—although there is much that can be done in this space. They want to help raise awareness of pre-pregnancy genetic testing amongst people planning a pregnancy and among healthcare professionals. This testing already exists; people just need to know about it so that they can make an informed choice. There is a general lack of awareness of these genetic tests, and SMA more specifically, even amongst healthcare professionals. Secondly, they would like to encourage the federal government to consider subsidising pre-implantation genetic diagnoses during the IVF process for those couples known to be carriers of genetic disorders. This is currently being looked at by government and should be approved without further delay. They hope that eventually genetic testing becomes routine and subsidised to make it more accessible to all Australians. It is so much more effective for us to spend our money on increasing access to carrier testing than to pay for the medical, palliative and social costs associated with these disorders, to say nothing about the emotional impacts on in this case a child and their parents. I'm pleased to say that there appears to be broad support across parliament for what Rachel and John are trying to achieve. Both the Minister and Assistant Minister for Health have begun looking at ways to assist in achieving these outcomes. In addition, the New South Wales health minister, Brad Hazzard, has met with Rachel, John and Mackenzie and has made a commitment to create a change for Mackenzie. In fact, our own federal Minister for Health has indicated that he has taken a personal interest in their representations. Rachel and John are thankful for the support they have received from some members of parliament, and now they hope that this support turns into action. For my part, I also pledge to do all I can to assist Mackenzie and her family to realise these sensible ideals. Our hearts remain with John and Rachel as they confront what is a very personal and enormously difficult struggle. I promise you that your efforts won't be in vain. West, Mr Alan Lindsay 6479 12:54 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria On 7 June this year, Mr Alan West of Mitcham, Victoria, passed away, at the age of 88. His daughter Roslyn West is in the gallery today. She's driven up from Melbourne to hear these remarks. Alan's life was long and rich as a teacher, as an anthropologist, as a museum curator and as a member of the Labor Party. It was a life of commitment to principles and to social justice, particularly in relation to Australia's first peoples. As the son of a locomotive driver, John, and mother Millie, Alan West was born in 1929 in the small town of Wycheproof in Victoria. At the beginning of the Depression the family moved to Coburg, in Melbourne, where his father trained and worked as a government health inspector. As a young man, in the late 1940s, Alan began studying theology and moved to Echuca, where he worked as a junior clerk in the Commonwealth Bank. At the invitation of the minister of the church he attended, he regularly assisted with the conduct of services in an Aboriginal community at Cummeragunja across the river in New South Wales. It was here that he observed firsthand the blatant discrimination and the repressive and racist paternalism of the government. Against this direct experience, Alan determined that he would dedicate his future work to advance the social, educational and human rights of Aboriginal people. For the rest of his life, he did exactly that. Having completed his theological training, Alan intended to work at one of the Churches of Christ Aboriginal missions in Western Australia but found he needed a further qualification: as a teacher. In 1951, soon after his marriage to Doreen Keats, he began training as a primary school teacher and qualified in 1953. From 1954 to 1958 he taught at the government Aboriginal school at Roelands in Western Australia and then at the Leederville Primary School, also in Western Australia. In 1960 he joined the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board as a social worker. This brought him into contact with many Indigenous communities and families. In his determination to make a difference to their lives, he faced many challenges—more often than not, with more bureaucratic office based managers within the welfare board, but he never shirked these challenges. In 1966, in response to the worsening conditions at Lake Tyers Mission Station, at Lakes Entrance in Victoria, Alan was appointed as manager to address these issues. He and his family moved onto the station and he made a number of immediate changes to improve the conditions of residents. It is there that he formed life-long friendships. Alan compiled a report and a series of recommendations for reform. However, his recommendations for reform were rejected by the welfare board and Alan resigned. His fundamental principles could not be compromised. In 1962 Alan completed a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, under renowned anthropologists Ronald and Catherine Berndt at the University of Western Australia, and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Social Sciences at the University of Melbourne. In 1967 he was appointed curator of anthropology at the then National Museum of Victoria, now Museums Victoria, from 1967 to 1980 and from 1983 through to 1986. In the intervening three years he was director of the Australia Council's Aboriginal Arts Board. Alan's first task at the museum was to coordinate the relocation and rehousing of the entire Indigenous cultures collection. Significantly, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Alan initiated the removal of Indigenous and ancestral remains from the exhibition in the museum. In that respect, for cultural protocols, he similarly removed secret and sacred men's ceremonial objects from public display. Alan was a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, now the Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, from 1968. He was a founding member of the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Committee and inspector under the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972. In these roles, he recommended that the Mount William axe quarry, near Lancefield in Victoria, be declared a site of cultural significance and thus protected under the act. During this time, as curator of the museum, he published extensively on the Australian Indigenous material culture, and he conducted field work, highlighted by documented films on artefact manufacture and taped interviews with community leaders in Victoria, Central Australia and Cape York. Two of these documentaries featured his friends, from Lake Tyers, Foster Moffatt and Albert 'Choppy' Hayes, demonstrating traditional canoe making, and he recorded Thelma Carter's skills as a basket maker. Alan's primary research is still being called on today. Without doubt, one of the most significant contributions was his research and work on a definitive manuscript on Tasmanian fibre practice and basket making. Copies of this manuscript continue to circulate amongst Aboriginal women in Tasmania, and it is regarded as the seminal impetus for the resurrection of contemporary basket-making practice. In addition, Alan's work with Aboriginal communities laid the foundation for many longstanding partnerships. He supported his old friend the late John Sandy Atkinson in establishing the boomerang keeping place in Shepparton, Victoria, that opened in 1974 with objects on loan from the National Museum of Victoria. In 1980 he completed a master's qualifying course in the division of prehistory at La Trobe University under Dr Ron Vanderwal. In 1999 the Museum of Victoria published Alan's thesis as a monograph, Aboriginal string bags, nets and cordage, which is widely consulted by community members and researchers. A secondary-school publication, Contact, An Australian History, coedited by D Poad and R Miller in 1985, is still being used as a textbook in Australia's schools. Alan developed many new exhibitions and actively initiated visits and engagements for Indigenous community members in the museum itself. These engagements introduced a whole generation of Indigenous people to the collections of their material cultures and laid the foundations for the partnerships that have continued in contemporary times. From his retirement, Alan continued to provide information on the material culture to senior and new staff working on Indigenous culture, to researchers, and to cultural heritage officers within the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in Victoria. His invaluable memories continued to enhance collection catalogue records up until his last months. The state of the collections, documentation and the department records are evidence of his extensive, generous, knowledgeable and ongoing contribution. They are also evidence that Alan West has been one of the most valuable curators in the history of the museum. In recognition of this, in 1986 he was appointed as an honorary associate of the museum and in 2013 he was awarded the position of curator emeritus Alan's social conscience extended beyond Indigenous communities. In the 1970 Victorian state elections he sat as a Labor candidate representing the seat of Scoresby. He received the highest number of first preference votes, 44.4 per cent, representing a swing to Labor of 4.2 per cent. Although receiving the highest first preference votes for Labor ever obtained in this seat, he narrowly lost on preferences. He stood on one more occasion in 1973, but the Liberals held the seat. Nonetheless, Alan's commitment to Labor principles and to social justice have never waned. His commitment to teaching extended into his role as a senior curator, and his legacy is firmly and permanently etched in the records of Museums Victoria and in the memories of all of those he has mentored. His commitment to the causes of Australian Indigenous peoples has never waned. The wonderful glint in his eye when he dryly and irreverently commented on the pretentious and the bureaucratic will be remembered by all who knew him. We are very fortunate in Australia that there are people out there with a social conscience. They fight for social justice. They fight with principle and with integrity. They fight for all of us, but particularly for those who are most disadvantaged. We should all be thankful for fine, noble Australians like Alan West. Pensions and Benefits 6481 13:03 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Today I would like to speak about this country's shamefully low Newstart and youth allowance rates. Not long ago, in fact in the last sitting, I was speaking on this matter, on the bill I brought to this place—the bill to increase Newstart and youth allowance. It would have increased the woefully low Newstart and youth allowance payments by $110 a fortnight. That would make a huge difference to families and children living in poverty. The chamber rejected the bill. The government just said no outright. The Labor Party is saying, 'We need a review first.' We do not need further evidence to show how low Newstart is, and I said that at the time, but just so that I can convince the chamber even more that Newstart is too low and to convince senators to change their minds, I will outline the latest findings of the University of New South Wales in their recently released report, New minimum income for healthy living budget standards for low paid and unemployed Australians. It is a bit of a mouthful, but bear with me, as there are some very important facts in this report. This report found that the long-term decline in the adequacy of income support payments is a major policy failure that needs to be addressed. The Newstart allowance hasn't materially changed—other than with the CPI—in the past two decades, despite considerable changes and increases in the cost of living. A single person receiving the Newstart allowance lives on $38 a day. This report builds on previous Australian and recent international research to develop a set of budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians and their families. The family types included are a single person—male and female—couples without children, couples with one and two children, and a sole parent with one child. The approach incorporates existing community norms, expert judgement and relevant evidence from social surveys and gives emphasis to the views expressed by the low-paid and unemployed individuals in focus groups to ensure that the standards are grounded in everyday experience and reflect real needs. This research looked at real families to collect real data on how they manage their household budgets. I will detail the main findings of the report. New weekly low-paid budget standards varied from $597 for a single adult to $1,173 for a couple with two children, specifically a six-year-old girl and 10-year-old boy. The corresponding budgets for unemployed families varied from $434 for a single adult to $940 for a couple with two children. For low-income couple families, the costs of the first and second children were around $137 and $203 a week respectively. For similar unemployed families, the corresponding costs were $106 and $174 a week respectively. The combined cost of the two children was around $340 a week or $170 per child for low-paid families, and $280 or $140 per child for unemployed families. The budget standards for low-paid families were between 22 per cent and 47 per cent above a poverty line set at 50 per cent of the median income, while those for unemployed families were very close to the poverty line, except for the sole parent family. Existing social safety net provisions as of June 2016 provided an adequate income for the low-paid single adults receiving the minimum wage and working full-time, but not for those with a partner or children. Specifically for those out of work reliant on the Newstart allowance, the safety net provisions fell short of the budget standards, estimated at $96 a week for a single person, $58 a week for a couple with one child and $126 a week for a couple with two children. Here's your evidence, folks. This is the evidence that shows, once again, how low Newstart and youth allowance payments are. Newstart payments and youth allowance do not come close to covering household budgets. Our income support system is stagnant and has utterly failed to keep up with the cost of living and the modern work environment. A recipient of Newstart currently receives a mere 38.54 per cent of the current minimum wage, which continues to fall short of providing the required necessities of living. To rent a home in 1990 would, on average, have cost 27 per cent of an individual's weekly income. However, currently Australians spend over a third of their income on rent, on average. To not compensate jobseekers for these extra costs of living leaves today's Newstart recipient in a worse relative financial position than they were in during the 1990s, putting paid to the government's ridiculous, concocted argument that people are better off than they used to be on the Newstart allowance. It is frankly astonishing that the Newstart allowance has not changed in all that time. It is simply meanness by this government and previous governments—all governments—during the time when it has been very evident that the Newstart allowance has not kept up with the cost of living, putting people further and further below the poverty line. Bear in mind that the evidence shows poverty is a barrier to finding work. We must commit to real action to alleviate poverty in Australia. Part of that is addressing the appallingly low income support payments. To remedy the situation, the long overdue report New minimum income for healthy living budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians recommends the implementation of a regular independent review to assess the adequacy of social security payments—in particular, the Newstart payment, which would be modelled upon the current minimum wage system of review. We need to look at the evidence. We need to increase Newstart and we need to put in place a new approach to setting not just Newstart allowance but other income support allowances. If we don't do this we will continue to see Newstart allowance and youth allowance get further and further behind. An independent panel would ensure that payments across the board are fair and adequate to meet the needs of people who are receiving and having to depend on income support. We need to take it out of the hands of politicians in this place so that the government of the day does not decide yet again to try to demonise those who are trying to find work—when you remember that for every six people who are looking for work where there are some skills required there is only one job; for people who have a lower skill level, it can get up to one in 10, depending on the area in which you live. So it is not people's fault that they're unemployed. The fact is that there are no jobs there. We are condemning people who cannot find work to live in poverty because the government simply will not recognise that Newstart is too low to assist people and help them have a standard of living that is considered even halfway decent. I say to Labor: please, please commit to increasing Newstart. Don't just say that we need another review, when there's consensus across the board. The Business Council, community service organisations, such as ACOSS, and a wide range of others all acknowledge that the Newstart allowance and youth allowance are too low. They recognise that living in poverty on Newstart allowance, on very low income, has physical and mental health implications and is a barrier to finding work. If this government is genuine about helping people to find work, they should increase the Newstart allowance. How much more evidence do you need? It is right there. For years it has been right there, and this latest report from the University of New South Wales shows very clearly the need to increase it. It shows how far below budget standards it is and points the way for a much fairer approach to the way we set those allowances. Have an independent approach. Commit to an independent approach to make sure that people are no longer struggling, living below the poverty line on a totally inadequate, inhumane payment. Western Australia: Space Research 6483 13:13 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise this afternoon to talk about something that we don't talk enough about in this place, and that is space. As a senator for the great state of Western Australia, I have so much to be proud of in our great state. But, first and foremost, I am always proud of our spirit of enterprise, innovation and ingenuity. Over my three years as a senator I have come to know many of WA's leading researchers, innovators and pioneers of future industries who are involved in a wide range of groundbreaking projects, particularly relating to space exploration research and space technologies. Many Australians might not know, and I believe most Western Australians don't know, that Western Australia already plays a significant role in Australia's space capability. In fact, Western Australia has been involved in the WA space industry since 1960, when the Muchea Tracking Station was built. Last week the WA opposition leader, Dr Mike Nahan, and I made a joint submission to the government's review of the future of Australia's space industry capability. In our submission, Dr Nahan and I recommended we establish an Australian space agency based on the UK Space Agency model but incorporating aspects of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory—which I had the pleasure of doing a 12-month project for, so I am familiar with that organisation. I believe that Western Australia would be very well placed, in fact is very well placed, to host such an agency. Since the opening of the Muchea facility in 1960, Western Australia has become home to a wide variety of civilian and defence space facilities, many of which I have had the pleasure of visiting. Probably the most exciting new development in this area is the fact that Western Australia is co-hosting the Square Kilometre Array with South Africa. When completed, it will be the world's most powerful telescope. Evidence of that is that its precursor facilities in the Murchison region are already unlocking secrets of the universe and are going back further and further towards the big bang. There is no doubt that the SKA is already cementing Western Australia as a leader in the global space industry, but it is, as I said, a welcome addition to many other existing facilities we have right across Western Australia. They include the Murchison Widefield Array, the Desert Fireball Network, the European Space Agency's deep space antenna in New Norcia, the Perth International Telecommunications Centre, the Western Australian Space Centre and the Learmonth Solar Observatory. WA is also home to the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre, a joint venture between CSIRO, Curtin University, UWA, Edith Cowan University and Murdoch University, and it is supported by both state and federal governments. There are a also a large number of significant space-related research and development initiatives happening at both Curtin University and UWA. In fact, so much work is now happening at Curtin University that NASA now recognises Curtin University as the formal representative of Australia's planetary science community. Even more excitingly, Curtin and UWA have now joined forces to form the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research. This is an exciting new development that provides a great opportunity for Western Australia to continue to grow as a global leader in this space. ICRA scientists are working on projects with the European Space Agency, with NASA and with other research teams in Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom. The centre currently has 100 staff and 34 graduates across a wide variety of disciplines, and it is growing fast. Since it was founded, ICRA has published more than 900 peer reviewed journal articles and has grown into, in a very short period of time, one of the most globally renowned centres of its kind. The centre also works with the team at the SKA, the Australian SKA Pathfinder, the Murchison Widefield Array and of course the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre. Unsurprisingly, given our extensive facilities and research initiatives, the WA workforce already has a strong presence in the space sector with an enormous potential to expand. In fact, back in 2015 an independent report commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science found that WA was the third-largest employer in Australia in the space industry, but this didn't include the government employees, the researchers and those already in WA employed by foreign space agencies. Today, there are thousands of people in Western Australia working right across this sector in a wide variety of disciplines. Another advantage Western Australia has is that our advanced manufacturing and fabrication industries—over 8,000 companies—also have the potential to contribute to this growing national space industry, just as they are now turning their mind to supporting the burgeoning defence industry in Western Australia. WA has some other unique features which make it uniquely placed to take an even larger share of Australia's space industry—in particular, our geographic location. Our extensive remote areas make it a very attractive place for major space projects. WA possesses the perfect combination of low population density, minimal electromagnetic interference and high air quality, which all come together to create ideal conditions for radio antenna, telescopes and other sensitive electronic measuring devices needed for both Defence and civilian space projects. It is clear that in Western Australia we have it all. We have the prime location, the existing facilities, the skill base and the capability to grow. Australia is currently the only OECD country that does not have its own national space agency. Our cousins over the ditch have one because they, too, recognise the benefits to the economy, the research endeavours and the technological developments. The bottom line for us here in Australia is that it is a growing industry of the future where there will be thousands and thousands of jobs for Australians. Consistent growth in the global space industry paired with Australia's current activities and capabilities in the space sector, a decision to form an Australian space agency will provide exciting opportunities to develop new industries and jobs across Australia, particularly in Western Australia. This, of course, means jobs for the long term. Identifying key priorities in line with global trends and the foundation of an Australian space agency would bring all these activities together under one roof, and it would give our universities and industry a much greater level of guidance and focus for research and implementation. Critically, providing the appropriate resources to industry and academia in terms of advice and funding would also enable Australia to take advantage of a greater share of the burgeoning global space economy. It would allow our nation to contribute to global space capability and, particularly, to further engage with a number of international industry and research bodies. I'm delighted to say that I'm currently working with Western Australia's universities, and we are preparing a proposal to put to the Commonwealth government which could see, very quickly, a state-of-the-art industry and space research centre in Perth. This Australian space technology industry and research centre would bring together the best and brightest minds in Australia under one roof with international agencies, government and industry, all applying their knowledge and capability to building a national space centre. If approved, the facility would be based in structure and concept on NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We envisage that it would employ initially at least 500 staff, and it would either be able to operate within the construct of an Australian space agency or be a stand-alone facility, if that wasn't to proceed. I would particularly like to commend all of Western Australia's universities for working together so harmoniously on this proposal and for acting quickly to take advantage of the Commonwealth government's current review. Given the significant capability and global leadership Western Australia has demonstrated in the space sector, I don't believe that it is a matter of if Western Australia will be involved in any future national endeavours because, quite clearly, we already are. The real question for Western Australia now is: how can we value-add and enhance what we already have to take advantage of these exciting new opportunities and create thousands and thousands of jobs for the long term? Watch this space—the future of this industry is very bright indeed. Multiculturalism 6485 13:23 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I rise to make a statement in response to the Senate report from the Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism which was tabled late in the last session of the Senate. I would like to commend the committee for their work on this critical issue, especially acknowledge the hard work of Senator Di Natale and give thanks to all of those who made submissions and gave evidence to the committee. Multiculturalism should be something that we celebrate in this country and in this place. It should not be seen as something extra or bolted onto any imaginary or existing Australian monoculture. Australian culture is woven with a rich and unique diversity of many cultures, which began and continues with the first peoples of this nation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Our many and diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations are the epitome of multiculturalism—human beings of diverse cultures centred on saltwater country, river country and desert country. Historically across Australia, Indigenous people were strongly multicultural, interconnected by sophisticated kinship protocols, responsibilities and relationships that transcended geographical boundaries and linguistic boundaries. Multiculturalism was our norm. Our society centred on law, language and land. Today, the many cultures living together in Australia are contributing to this modern nation and its rich tapestry. This, I hope, is how we understand multiculturalism—with respect and acceptance for our cultural diversity, our differences and our common humanity. The committee report directs attention to the issues of cultures as opposed to the concept of race. The question of race is a concept and term that is widely used in parliamentary language and legislation and in the construction of entities with 'race' as part of their name. The consequence of 'race', however, is not necessarily as straightforward as it is often assumed. We know that the use of the term 'race' has the capacity to reinforce negative perceptions of others from different cultures. We know that 'race' is the branding iron to impart deliberative differences, followed by the whip crack of racism. Fundamentally, it is used to entrench power, position and dominance over other human beings of difference and to deem them as inferior. The physically encoded and outmoded sense of race was the basis of forced social change, assimilation policies and, indeed, belief in biogenetics. As a consequence, Indigenous families were regimented, ordered and controlled by government officials and functionaries on the basis of race. My father, a so-called white man, was imprisoned for the crime of loving my mother, a so-called half-caste, on the basis of race. In April 1934, in Old Parliament House, there was a meeting of administrators of Aboriginal affairs called the conference of Commonwealth and state Aboriginal authorities. They agreed to a national policy accord that said: … this Conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end. This was a chilling genocidal moment of great consequence for my family, for the first-nation peoples of this nation and, certainly, for our nation itself. The notion of race that underpinned the policy thinking of that meeting drove the bureaucratic, civil and criminal regimes of the time. It is responsible for taking children away and the stolen generations. It lingers on in today's encounters between the first-nation peoples and elements of the settler society, despite it being no longer official policy. Social science tells us that minor biological diversities of skin colour, hair type and eye shape are not a significant marker of difference. Those differences may be socially regarded as significant, but, in biological terms, they are irrelevant. There is much more that unites us as members of the human species than might be seen as dividing us. We're all members of the human race. It is the nature and manner of our social and cultural conditioning that inhibits our tolerance and respect. We should be shifting away from the use of the term 'race', especially in this place. This will take time, as it is embedded in many pieces of legislation. However, this matter ought to be seriously considered by us all. In this committee report, the Australian Labor Party recalls the fact that, in the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' first report to parliament, the committee proposed the removal of sections 51(xxvi) and section 25 of the Australian Constitution because of their reliance on 'race'. Section 51(xxvi) is relied upon by this parliament to do positive or negative things to the first-nations people by way of legislation and policy. The joint select committee, at the time chaired by Senator Nova Peris, as she was, and Mr Ken Wyatt, described the term 'race' as an 18th century concept. They advised that the embedded racist thinking that governs the construction of these clauses in the Constitution should be removed. We must work to change this. Our ongoing support for multiculturalism in a global society requires this of us. The acknowledgement and fostering of cultures as opposed to race induces a shift in our language that is inclusive of all, supportive of personal identity and pride and engendering a sense of belonging to this wonderful nation. There is no place in Australia for racism. As time goes on, as Australians we may mature to see that there is no place in Australia for the concept of race itself. In this place, unfortunately, we have seen in recent sittings the sharp whistle go out to the dogs of racism in this country. We have seen the cultural practice of some of our Australian cultures being parodied and insulted. Cultural identity should not be mocked with superficiality and simplicity. Respect and understanding have much more to offer to our already rich diversity. In my own family's life, encounters with such racist intolerance based on race has, in fact, caused division, entrenched inferiority and turned what would be normally sustainable and beautiful relationships into things of terror and fear, with the dominance of authority based on eugenics over our lives. National Security, Parliament House: Dress Standards 6487 13:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland On 17 August this year, I took my place in the Senate wearing the burqa, which is the most widely recognised symbol of radical Islam. It sent shock waves across this chamber because it was the first time a burqa had ever been worn in this place. Many here have since disclosed to me they found it confronting, distasteful and unnerving by the sheer fact of its symbolism. Some have called it a stunt, but I prefer to call it drawing attention to the dress code regulations of this chamber, of which there are none, and also to add validity to the public's concern that it is of great national security. Let me also add that I, like many other Australians, believe that the burqa and niqab are a form of oppression and control of women. I want these Islamic full-face coverings and other full-face coverings banned in all places where Commonwealth law applies. I am not alone, because the Nationals, at their conference this weekend, will vote on the very same issue. If that policy is adopted then the Nationals will adopt One Nation policy. Senator Brandis, the Hansard recorded your speech in which you criticised me for wearing a burqa in this chamber, but it did not record who stood and clapped. Let me put it on the record now that all of your colleagues and Senator Bernardi remained seated and stunned while you strutted the Senate stage with your quivering lip. All of the Labor senators and the Greens, together with Senator Hinch and Senator Gichuhi, jumped to their feet to defend the burqa as a religious symbol. Whether or not you agree with my decision to wear a burqa in parliament is not the real issue. The real issue is that Australians want a debate on full-face coverings and they want a debate on the issues that the burqa raises. It is, after all, a sign of radical Islam, which threatens the true Australian way of life. What would our Anzacs say? They fought for our freedom and way of life. There is room for only one flag, one language, one loyalty and one law. Recently, the lives of precious Australians have been lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to stop radical Islam. But, Senator Brandis, you forgot those lives when you defended the most recognised symbol of radical Islam, the burqa. It was you, Senator Brandis, who found yourself— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Hanson, you need to address your comments to the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 Through you, Chair— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Not through me; the comments need to be directed to me. Senator HANSON BK6 Senator Brandis found himself backed in a corner when I wore the burqa into the Senate chamber. Why were you so upset when I wore the burqa into the Senate? Instead of dealing with the issues raised by the burqa, you sidestepped them and declared the burqa as a religious requirement. The Australian National Imams Council, in their press release issued later that day, said it was not a religious requirement to wear the burqa. Senator Brandis, the burqa is not a religious requirement, but it is a shorthand for radical Islam through its oppression of women and association with communities which desire our law to be replaced by sharia law. Many women are silently suffering by being forced to wear the burqa. The burqa condemns many women to be perpetual minors, obedient to their male guardians. It is these women and their children who are most at risk of genital mutilation. Other women wear the burqa as a political statement, a form of defiance against a country which has given them freedom from the oppression experienced in other countries. The court of public opinion has judged you and found you wanting because you defended the most powerful symbol of radical Islam here in the heart of Australia's democracy. Senator Brandis, how can Australians believe the government is serious when it says— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Hanson, again, I just draw your attention to the requirement to address your remarks to the Chair. Senator HANSON BK6 I am making reference to Senator Brandis, through the chair, in relation to how Australians can believe the government is serious when it says that integration into our society is an important requirement for Australian citizenship when you defend the burqa. The burqa is only seen in communities which want to remain separate from the rest of Australia. Surveys including the Sky News/ReachTEL poll, which was done after I wore the burqa into parliament, show the majority of Australians want the burqa banned and they want it done now. But, Senator Brandis, it seems you believe you know better. Senator Brandis, if you do not ban the full-face coverings, including the burqa and the niqab, how can a court of Australia truly determine who appears before it? The majority of Australians want civil servants, judges, soldiers and others to show their faces at work and in public. To do otherwise contradicts the neutrality of the state. They also want the burqa banned in any areas where Commonwealth law applies for reasons related to security and social cohesion. We know that Labor depends on the Muslim vote to hold up to 15 lower house seats in the parliament, but it is unclear what motivates you to speak up in favour of the burqa. The Liberals do not hold a single lower house seat where there are 10,000 or more Muslims in an electorate. Senator Brandis, you are being used by Labor. You have a right to a view on my decision to wear the burqa into the Senate, but it is arrogant, incorrect and ill-informed when you presume to speak for most Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Hanson, again, I remind you that your remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Senator HANSON BK6 The caution that was given to me in respect of our counter-terrorism strategy is rejected. I greatly respect the Australian Federal Police and other agencies, but it was only a miscalculation by the terrorists which allowed the Etihad passengers to reach their destination. If the bag containing the bomb had not been rejected because of the weight, then on 15 July 2017 we would have seen a catastrophic air explosion. We all fly on domestic and overseas flights, and we are equally at risk of acts of terrorism. It is a nonsense to suggest my wearing the burqa would stop anyone from reporting a threat. The real problem now is that terrorists are better at hiding their intentions from the community. We saw that in the recent Barcelona van attack. The ill-informed Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has also suggested I will be responsible for the next terrorist plot in Australia. Sarah Hanson-Young has long been a disgrace in this parliament with her uncontrollable childish outbursts and her puerile, attention-seeking behaviour with the media. It is the Australian Greens, with their open-border policies, who are putting all Australians at risk. Labor and the Australian Greens are so intent on winning seats in the parliament they will not ask themselves whether Muslims are more inclined to radicalisation. Successive governments have failed to investigate these economic issues so that informed decisions can be made on whether or not to accept more migrants from Islamic countries, seeing that just 53 per cent of Muslim men and 24 per cent of Muslim women were employed on the night of the 2011 census. In some parts of Australia, our way of life has been threatened by Muslims who demand special privileges in our swimming pools, our schools and our universities. In every university, the taxpayer funds one or more prayer rooms, with associated facilities that cannot be used by other students. A number of Islamic societies on these campuses have as their prime aim the conversion of others to Islam. Let me refer to a book titled Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terrorby Nonie Darwish. She writes: Their only solution was to send their children to Muslim schools. And in these schools in America, the same indoctrination and hate speech against non-Muslims I experienced back in Gaza is now creating a new generation full of alienation and rage, a subculture that rejects the larger society. The indoctrination of these schools here and elsewhere in the West is producing angry young Muslims who cannot relate to the larger community. It is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. … … … Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the fear, defensiveness and silence of the majority is "heard" loud and clear as agreement by the radicals. Millions of Australians want a debate on the Islamisation of this country without being called racist. In any event, Muslims are not a race; they are peoples from over 130 countries who speak different languages, have different ethnicities and have different shared histories. I, through you, Chair, say: Senator Brandis, whether you think wearing a burqa into the Senate was the right thing to do or not, the fact is Australians want to focus on the issues I have raised. Australians are worried by the burqa and what it means. It is wrong of you, Senator Brandis, to deny the citizens of this country a say in their future. Northern Australia 6490 13:41 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Northern Australia, and that part of northern Australia which I represent in Queensland, have had huge advancements and successes in recent years, for many reasons, not the least of which is the Abbott and Turnbull government's White paper on developing northern Australia. As chairman of the implementation oversight committee, we'll shortly be presenting to the Prime Minister our report on the successes and the actions that ministers in the executive government have taken in honouring the commitments made in the white paper. Most senators will have heard about the major commitments and successes of the white paper: the establishment of the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, other roads—including the massive amount of work happening on the Bruce Highway—great successes in Indigenous involvement, water feasibility studies that will at last open up and capture some of the vast rainfall in the north of Australia, and research facilities like the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. In the north we already lead the world with our wonderful tourist destinations, particularly the magnificent Barrier Reef that continues to draw tourists from all over the world and continues to be a wonderful experience. We have the rainforest. We have our other tourist destinations: the Whitsundays, Far North Queensland, Magnetic Island, the outback of the north, the Mission Beach area. We also lead Australia in sugar exports, beef exports and mineral exports. In the north we have Australia's largest Army base, at Lavarack in Townsville, we have the second-largest east coast Navy base, in Cairns, and we have significant Air Force bases at Garbutt, Darwin and other places in the north. But today I want to talk about another aspect where North Queensland is really leading Australia and, in places, the world—that is, James Cook University. I've had a long association with James Cook University, although I've never attended. The University College of Townsville was set up when I was in grade 10 at Ayr State High School. I was never clever enough to go to university, nor my parents wealthy enough to send me, but I've had that close association since the university college was first established. The college became the James Cook University of North Queensland on 29 April 1970 by an act of the Queensland parliament. I think it is the only university in Australia that's been officially opened by the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. In 1987 a campus was established in Cairns, and in 2003 the university opened a campus in Singapore. The university is named after the founder of the east coast, Captain James Cook, who really brought modern Australia to this continent. Of course, we also recognise the Indigenous heritage we have, and the library at James Cook University is named the Eddie Koiki Mabo Library. James Cook's been famous for its marine research over many decades and also for its cyclone-testing work. Recently, James Cook University was awarded top marks for graduate employment, for the seventh year in a row, by The Good Universities Guide. Figures show that 74.9 per cent of undergraduates from James Cook University find full-time employment within four months of graduating, higher than the national average of 69.5 per cent. Another university prominent in the north, Central Queensland University, with campuses in Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns and many other places, also received recognition for their graduate employment, particularly in the areas of engineering, teacher education, architecture and building, and received five-star results for graduate employment, median graduate salary and social equity. I've often spoken about James Cook University, but today I want to concentrate a bit on the medical school. Peter Lindsay, a former member for Herbert, and I had a lot to do with convincing the then Liberal health minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, to help the university establish a college of medicine at JCU. This happened in 2000. The university's dentistry and veterinary science graduates have the highest employment rates in the country, while JCU's medical graduates have a 100 per cent employment rate. During the break, I had the pleasure of calling on the dean of the College of Medicine and Dentistry, Professor Richard Murray, and had a talk to him about past successes and their aims for the future. There have been advances. Along with Warren Entsch, I helped the university set up the dentistry element of the College of Medicine and Dentistry in Cairns. Recently the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, which was a major coalition commitment before the 2010 and 2013 elections, has become a reality, advancing James Cook's world recognition in tropical health and medicine. As I said, the medical program at JCU commenced in the year 2000. It was the first new medical course in Australia for 25 years and the first to be entirely located in a regional or remote area. The inaugural class of 58 students graduated as doctors at the end of 2005. Fast-forward a decade later and there have been 1,288 graduates in medicine, with over 100 of those receiving honours degrees. Among these doctors are 29 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander medical graduates. Interestingly, of the 1,694 current undergraduate students at the college, 1,154 are medical students, 376 dentistry students, 142 pharmacy students and 22 physician's assistants students. There are about 400 academic and professional and technical staff, meaning the ratio of staff to students is about one to four, which is pretty good. I guess that demonstrates why the results are so good. In dentistry, the university received a five-star rating, ranked as No. 1 in Australia for overall graduate employment in the dentistry area. In medicine, it was ranked No. 1 in Australia, according to university rankings by subject. In the pharmacy area, another five-star rating, it was ranked No. 1 in Australia for overall quality educational experience, and No.1 in Australia for overall course satisfaction. A regular survey of medical graduates showed that interest in working in rural areas increased over the duration of the course, from 64 per cent at entry to 79 per cent when they graduated. These are doctors who intend to work in rural areas. The proportion of students intending to practice medicine outside the Australian capital cities from JCU was some 84 per cent. From other universities around Australia, it was 16 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of graduates who undertook their internships outside a metropolitan centre was, for JCU, 64 per cent; from other universities in Australia, it was 17 per cent. Of graduates planning to work in regional locations with a population of less than 100,000, for JCU, it was 42 per cent; for other universities, it was18 per cent. I have run out of time in relating the good news from JCU's College of Medicine and Dentistry. There's a lot more that the college and the dean have planned for the school, particularly in addressing areas of shortage for registrar places. But suffice to say that through the university, through the government, there are a lot of doctors coming out of university that are now looking after rural and regional Australia. Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements 6492 13:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I too, following on from Senator Macdonald, want to talk about regional Queensland. Specifically, in the last couple of weeks, I've had the opportunity to travel to the federal seat of Dawson and the federal seat of Hinkler with federal Labor leader Bill Shorten. It was a really interesting visit because we were able to focus on a number of issues which were illustrative, I think, of the position that this government is in. But it was also an opportunity for us to listen to the community—to talk to community businesses and local government about opportunities and optimism for the future, highlighting the lack of government action in particular areas. We also had two well-attended town hall forums, one in the northern beaches of Mackay and one in Bundaberg. Indeed, the trip to Dawson, where we also visited Proserpine, was the federal Labor leader's third trip since the cyclone, so there has been a really strong commitment from the federal Labor leader to ensure that those communities aren't forgotten. And it was my fourth trip to that affected area. I have been there twice now with federal Labor leader Bill Shorten, I have been there with shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen and I have also been there with Stephen Jones, the member for Whitlam. Prior to that, I went and had a beer at the Ayr RSL, where they informed me that Senator Macdonald actually lives around the corner. But I didn't get the invite to have dinner with Senator Macdonald whilst I was at the Ayr RSL! But the concerning thing about, in particular, the trip to Proserpine was the lack of government action on the natural disaster recovery and relief arrangements. It is something that the local councils have been united on, through Proserpine, Mackay and, indeed, Rockhampton. But this government has failed to come to the party, although there was an announcement last week from the Minister for Justice, Minister Keenan. But I would point out that, when he made some additional funding announcements for the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, he did it whilst he was in Brisbane. He didn't even have the courtesy to go to the affected communities, see the devastation from the cyclone and easily understand how important this funding is. He just visited Brisbane and put out a press release; that was the level of commitment. I know that he's had invitations from the local mayors to visit the impacted communities, but he has not been there since initially flying in on a helicopter with, I think, Senator Macdonald. So there's a united view from the local councils in those areas that the federal government are still not doing enough to fix the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. They've now promised a total of $48.1 million, which is still way short of the $110 million that the state government have put on the table. It is what the federal government have been found lacking on. There's no doubt that those impacted communities deserve so much better than what the federal government have been providing. We also, both in Mackay and in Bundaberg, had the opportunity to do local roundtables with business, local government and members of the community. These were really illustrative for us in that, in areas where at the moment there is, unfortunately, high unemployment and where people are struggling to see much of an opportunity for themselves and their young ones, there is, on the ground, a sense of optimism, a sense that if they can just get a few things right there will be opportunity for growth. But the consistent feedback from these meetings was that the federal government isn't hitting the mark. There's no faith in this federal government being able to change some of the circumstances on the ground, whether that be through tourism opportunities or whether it be in training opportunities, or in its actually working with those communities to make changes so that people can benefit. At the back-to-work forums that we hosted with federal Labor leader Bill Shorten there were a range of businesses, whether they were in the local craft beer sector or whether they were in tourism. It was really encouraging to receive such broad feedback from them and from the local councils, who are often the ones who are so in touch with what is happening in those regional communities. But the overwhelming feedback was that there is a lack of action from the federal government, in particular from the sitting National Party MPs, in those places. We held town hall forums in the northern beaches of Mackay and Bundaberg as well. Huge crowds came along to these. I think even Donald Trump would be very impressed with the crowds that turned up at these town hall forums. And there were consistent themes. We know that the NBN is a mess, particularly in regional Queensland. This came through strongly in Mackay and it came through very strongly in Bundaberg. The last time NBN Co had to put out their records, in the whole of Australia it was Bundaberg that had made the most complaints about the NBN. When federal Labor leader Bill Shorten raised the NBN at the packed town hall in Bundaberg, it was just met with laughter. People in Bundaberg really do ridicule the NBN because it is not delivering the services that they need. Another consistent theme was concern about the fly-in fly-out workforce, labour hire and casualisation. What we're seeing and noticing in Queensland is an increase in casualisation. It's actually growing at a quicker rate in regional Queensland. That is changing the nature of these coastal communities from areas that traditionally have had very strong population bases. For the first time we are seeing those communities starting to shrink. The increase in casualisation and the changing circumstances around industrial relations in these communities are having a negative impact for the current day but also for the long term, because they are going to change the nature of the way these places are growing. We also heard, through both forums, a consistent theme of inequality. This is something that the other side deny is a problem but, when you spend any time in Mackay or Bundaberg, it comes through really strongly. People see inequality around education, they see it around the NBN and they see it around economic opportunity in regional Queensland in particular. The government can bury their heads in the sand, but we know it is a problem, and it is something that federal Labor leader Bill Shorten focused on and received a strong response about in those local communities. The other issue that is growing as a significant concern in regional Queensland is around aged care. There are growing problems throughout regional Queensland around access to aged care and, at the same time, the quality of service. This is something that we will come back to and spend a lot more time on, but we do know it is starting to strike a chord with Queenslanders. Clearly, the overwhelming message from the town hall forums in Mackay and Bundaberg was that people see this government as out of touch. They have a lack of faith in the government. They see the chaos and dysfunction. They see that the government are failing to deal with the important issues that they talk about. The citizenship issue, and the fact that there are illegitimate ministers in play, came up frequently. We also saw concern around local MPs that aren't doing their job. We saw it in Mackay and Dawson and we saw it in Hinkler as well. There is a real concern in those local communities that they aren't getting the representation they deserve. And there's no bigger highlight of that than the national disaster relief and recovery arrangements, which the government have failed to deal with adequately. The PRESIDENT e5v The time has expired. It being 2 pm, we proceed to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6494 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Leader of the Nationals 6494 14:00 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my right! Senators have the right to ask the questions they wish to ask. Senator URQUHART 231199 Yesterday, the Minister denied that her potential ineligibility as a senator had impacted her decision-making by claiming she was 'very recently with the member for Whitlam announcing $10 million for a road'. Given that the decision to fund this road was made almost 12 months ago, does the minister want to try again? Just name one funding decision made since questions about your eligibility as a senator were revealed. 14:01 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales If my recollection serves me correctly, I was talking in general at that point in time about the very good regional grants program that we have in this coalition government. I was simply pointing out the fact that I was with the member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, talking about the $10 million road project in Fowlers Road, Dapto, which was very well received not only by the local member but by the people down there in the local community. It was relating to my broader conversation at the time around projects. As I have indicated to the chamber, I have made many decisions around projects. The advice that I have currently indicates that I will continue to do so and that those decisions will be very well considered and appropriate. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, on a point of order: the minister might have been about to get to it, but she was asked one question. She was asked to name one funding decision made since questions about her eligibility as a senator were revealed, not the 12-month-ago decision that she referred to yesterday. The PRESIDENT e5v She was asked two questions. The first one was: 'Does the minister want to try again?' That was the first question, and I think the minister was clearly answering that portion of the question. Minister, have you concluded your answer? Senator Nash e5g Yes. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Urquhart, is there a supplementary question? 14:02 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Applications for the $30 million in funding for the Bowen Basin under the Regional Jobs and Investment Package closed on 15 August. Can the minister assure applicants that a decision on applications will not be delayed or be put at risk as a result of her potential ineligibility? 14:02 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Yes. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Urquhart, is there a final supplementary question? 14:03 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The minister will soon decide on $20 million in grant funding in Cairns under the same fund, where applications also closed on 15 August. Why is the minister refusing to step aside from her portfolio responsibilities and remove the risk to support that many Queenslanders are relying on? 14:03 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales It does sound very similar to a number of other questions that have been asked of me, but I am happy to provide an answer. I will continue to make decisions in my capacity as Minister for Regional Development and, indeed, my other portfolios. I believe those decisions will be very well considered and appropriate. But can I now point out that this is the ninth question I've had since Monday morning on an issue that is not a priority for the Australian people. Again, the Labor Party has refused to take the opportunity to ask me a question about any of my portfolios or any of the portfolios of ministers that I represent about things that matter to the Australian people. I know from the conversations I've had that there are people who are incredibly disappointed that Labor is again showing their complete disregard for regional Australia. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 6495 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:04 The PRESIDENT e5v Order, Senators! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Sweden led by Mr Urban Ahlin, the Speaker of the Parliament of Sweden. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia, and in particular to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Ahlin was seated accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6496 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 6496 14:04 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on the national accounts data released today and what this shows about the Australian economy? 14:05 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Bushby for that question. What it shows is that the Turnbull government's pro-growth, pro-opportunity, pro-jobs agenda is working. It shows that our economy continues to grow. In recent weeks we have seen evidence of more jobs, more investment, higher wages and more exports. Real growth of 0.8 per cent over the past quarter is more than twice the rate of the previous quarter. In year-average terms, at 1.9 per cent throughout the 2016-17 financial year, real growth is higher than the 1¾ per cent real growth forecast in the last budget. Of course, Labor is not interested in the strength of our economy or in opportunity. They are only interested, for political reasons, in going back to their old failed socialist agenda of the past. At budget time, the Labor side was saying, 'These growth forecasts are way too ambitious', and, of course, we've come in above the growth forecast. But do you know what the shadow Treasurer says today: 'This is too low.' At budget time, he said we were being too optimistic, too ambitious and that we would never deliver on the economic growth forecasts in the budget. Well, we've exceeded them. They say today, 'It's too low.' They haven't got a clue. That is what socialism does to you. Socialism clearly leaves everyone worse off and it clearly is already having an impact on the Labor Party. Export volumes rose 2.7 per cent in the June quarter and 4.3 per cent throughout the year. New private business investment grew by 1.1 per cent in the quarter to be 1.5 per cent higher than a year ago. New machinery and equipment investment expanded 3.2 per cent in the quarter. There is more business investment in Australia, with capital imports increasing by almost 25 per cent. There is so much more— (Time expired) Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my left! Senator Bushby, a supplementary question. 14:07 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania How are the government's policies supporting growth in the Australian economy and the creation of more jobs? 14:07 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia One of the central planks of our national economic plan for jobs and growth is a tax cut that benefits 87 per cent of Australian workers working for private sector businesses—a tax cut which the Labor Party is opposing. They used to support it, but now that they've gone back to their socialist past—to a time when your Labor government of the past wanted less opportunity for people to get ahead and was quite happy for less growth, less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages—they are now against a business tax cut to benefit 87 per cent of Australian workers working for a private sector business, even though they would know these tax cuts help protect jobs, help to create more jobs and help to drive increases in real wages over time. We also, unlike those opposite, have a commitment to keep the tax burden on the economy below 23.9 per cent. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question. 14:08 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Can the minister explain to the Senate why the government is pursuing policies that lead to equality of opportunity, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:08 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We are pursuing policies to provide equality of opportunity because we want every individual Australian to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. That is why, among other things, we are pursuing policies to provide a safety net for those in need of support but also to encourage reward for effort and hard work and to encourage Australians to do the best they can so that Australians today and future generations of Australians can have the best possible opportunity to succeed, because pursuing equality of outcome leaves everyone worse off. The evidence is in. The case studies around the world have demonstrated that, if you pursue policies designed to achieve equality of outcome, you leave everyone worse off and the people that get hurt the most are low- and middle-income earners. Labor don't care about the opportunities for low- and middle-income earners. Labor just want to pursue an outdated socialist agenda— (Time expired) Energy 6497 14:09 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Yesterday the minister begged— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, on my right! Senator Cameron, please start again. Senator CAMERON AI6 My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Yesterday the minister begged senators to ask her questions about issues important to the Australian people, including, 'What is the coalition government doing to improve energy affordability?' Can the minister confirm that, under the coalition government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled? 14:10 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales In terms of the specific number, I'm not entirely sure what Senator Cameron is referring to. I am not confirming that. What I will confirm is that it has taken this coalition government to focus on energy reliability and affordability. We have a track record in this area, unlike those opposite. When we look at, say, the Labor state of South Australia, to see what has happened there on energy reliability and affordability, it is the worst state. I may just run through for those opposite what the coalition government are doing on energy reliability and affordability. We are expanding the Snowy Hydro scheme, increasing capacity by 50 per cent— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a point of order? Senator Cameron AI6 This is on relevance. I did not ask what they were doing. I simply asked whether it was true that, under the coalition government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled. That is the policy question and the minister should answer that. The PRESIDENT e5v The minister did answer that by saying that she did not have the quantum to give you. So she has answered the question. She has been directly relevant. The minister is enhancing her answer, which ministers are allowed to do. Senator NASH e5g Those opposite may know that the Prime Minister has recently met with energy retailers. I must commend the Prime Minister for the work that he has been doing with those energy retailers to ensure that our consumers have the best plans available. Around two million Australians have been contacted or will be contacted to ensure that they are on the best available energy plans. This is in contrast to what those opposite have been doing, which shows an absolute lack of commitment to providing reliability and affordability for the Australian people when it comes to electricity prices. We are putting downward pressure on gas prices. It's taken this government to put policies in place to ensure that we have that downward pressure on gas prices. Unlike when we look at the comments from Mr Butler from the other side, of course, showing the previous track record of the Labor government is less than positive when it comes to gas prices, it is the coalition government that's going to deliver on reliability and affordability for energy for the Australian people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a supplementary question? 14:13 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Almost three months ago, the Finkel review recommended the establishment of a clean energy target, a move energy generators say is necessary to reduce upward pressure on energy prices. Can the minister confirm that the coalition government has still not been able to agree on the clean energy target? 14:14 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales When I was talking about questions that were important to the Australian people, I didn't think I'd be asked questions outside of my portfolio area on energy, but I'm very happy to take the question. The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, a point of order, Mr President. She invited them. She said, 'Ask me what the coalition is doing to improve energy prices.' We are just being helpful. The PRESIDENT e5v There is no point of order. Senator Wong, I'm sure the minister is very grateful for your assistance, but I will call the minister and she can answer what portion of the question she wishes to. Senator NASH e5g Thank you very much, Mr President, and can I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for her assistance and for being so helpful. I was merely pointing out that, while I'm very happy to take the question, indeed, about an issue that's very important to the Australian people and that the coalition government is delivering a solution for, it's simply not my portfolio. My understanding is that Finkel himself said that the response would take up to six months, and we are on track to do that. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 14:15 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Six months, eh? Isn't it clear, whether it's energy affordability or the eligibility of ministers who make the decisions that impact all Australians, that this minister and the coalition government don't have answers to the issues that are important to Australians? 14:15 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I can tell the senator what's important to the Australian people. What's important to the Australian people is making sure, as I've said, that we have affordable and reliable energy. There is probably nothing more important to the Australian people at the moment than knowing that they're going to be able to afford their electricity prices. I'll tell you what else is important to the Australian people—making sure that we've got a strong and sustainable regional economy. Regional Australia drives this nation and drives the economy, and, unlike those opposite, it's the coalition that is going to put the policies in place to make sure that we do that. This government is absolutely focused on what's important to the Australian people. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Oh dear—keep going forever! That's all we hear from you! Senator NASH e5g I'll take that interjection from the other side from Senator Collins. She's going, 'Oh dear.' That's about the only contribution she's got for regional Australia. That's all she can come up with—'Oh dear.' It's the coalition that's going to deliver for this nation, and we'll continue to do so. Energy 6499 14:16 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Today the Prime Minister said that there's been 'a colossal failure in the planning of our energy system', and we Greens absolutely agree. It's hardly a surprise when the government's destroyed the long-term price signal; slashed the Renewable Energy Target with the support of the Labor Party, turning away international clean-tech investors; and created enormous uncertainty in the energy sector. Given that Malcolm Turnbull's energy plan now consists of nothing more than extending the life of a polluting coal plant when even its owners want to shut it down, why isn't this just another colossal failure in the planning of our energy system? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It's clear that Senator Di Natale has not had time yet to have a look at the AEMO review—the study that looks at the requirements for base load-dispatchable power in Australia and highlights, indeed, some of the risks to the Australian economy, energy supply and affordability of energy of the current arrangements in Australian energy delivery. It's a report that highlights the fact that those risks have been exacerbated by the closure of the Northern Power Station in South Australia, which was a coal-fired plant, and Hazelwood Power Station, which was also a coal-fired plant. It's a report that highlights the fact that those risks have come about because—as indeed Dr Finkel himself highlighted in his work—the stability in the market has been undermined by an excessive reliance on renewable energies and by a loss of those steadying influences of base load power and the way in which they interact with the energy systems. I invite Senator Di Natale to take a look at the AEMO report to actually see very clearly what it says and the indication it makes about the importance of maintaining stability in the system. It's why one of the early recommendations of the Finkel review that this government has acted on is to provide certainty around the closure of major base load generators. It's why we want to keep those major base load generators in the system for as long as possible. So, yes, it is why we want to keep Liddell Power Station open for as long as possible and why the Prime Minister is actively engaged in ensuring that Liddell Power Station does stay open to provide the time and the stability to ensure reliability in the Australian energy market into the future. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:19 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Let's go to the AEMO report. The Energy Market Operator is not recommending extending the life of coal generators. Its clear preference is an ambitious national plan for more renewables, embracing the modernisation of the grid and accelerating the uptake of new technologies like storage, smart software and demand management. Why won't the government adopt this plan and rule out spending one cent of public money on extending the life of the Liddell coal-fired plant? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator Di Natale is clearly ignoring the elements of the AEMO report that make it clear that were the scheduled closure of Liddell in 2022 to go ahead there would be a supply shortfall. When there is a supply shortfall, the consequences for households and businesses are real. Our government is working on the delivery of Snowy 2.0, which can provide reliable energy into the system. But that will take time. It's important that, in delivering these things, we keep maximum reliability in the system, which is where extending the life of something like Liddell— Senator Di Natale 53369 Mr President, a point of order on relevance: I did ask very explicitly in my question whether the government would rule out spending public money on extending the life of the Liddell coal-fired plant. The PRESIDENT e5v Just prior to that you did ask why won't the government adopt the report, or the details of the report, and the minister at the beginning of the answer to your question indicated elements of the report. He directly responded and was directly relevant and indicated why not. I agree he hasn't answered the second element of your question but he certainly answered the first element. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X This government is not going to make any apologies for engaging directly with the owners of Liddell to make sure, if it is at all possible and viable, that that plant continues its operation beyond the scheduled closure date to give the reliability and base load certainty to our energy markets in the future that will help to keep prices down and reliability up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. 14:21 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The potential gap in supply following the closure of the Liddell plant would have been more than filled by renewable energy like solar and wind if it wasn't for the Labor and Liberal parties slashing the 2020 renewable energy target. Given that they created this mess, why won't they fix it by making sure we have more renewable energy in the system and adopting AEMO's plan? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Base load despatchable energy—base load energy that's there when you need it, as you need it—is not solar and wind, as Senator Di Natale neatly summarised it; that's not at all the case. It is about how you guarantee the energy is there when you need it. For all the good things about renewables, you cannot guarantee solar and wind will be there when you need them. Senator McKim JKM Hydro says hello. You have no idea. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Hydro! This is exactly why the Turnbull government is getting on with looking at pumped hydro projects, ensuring we can deliver reliable energy. We have seen in states like mine that have gone down the pathway of an overreliance on renewables—South Australia and your home state as well, Senator Di Natale— Senator Hinch 2O4 On a point of order, Mr President: I would actually like to hear the minister's response. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Hinch. I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly. It's only fair that we all get to hear the answers as well as the questions, so I would ask all senators to refrain from making additional noise and interjecting, which is disorderly. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X AEMO highlights that in South Australia and Victoria, where state governments have pursued more aggressive renewable targets and where we have seen the closure of base load plants, there is a higher risk to reliability than elsewhere in the market—that's the reality and it is a reality we are trying to address and fix. It certainly won't be fixed by your narrow solutions. (Time expired) Energy 6501 14:23 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Particularly given your response to Senator Di Natale about a state government who closed down a base load power station and then had to commission filthy, polluting, diesel generating capacity to make up for the shortfall, can the minister update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to put downward pressure on power prices and ensure stable and reliable electricity for all Australians? 14:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Fawcett, from my home town of South Australia. As I was just referencing to Senator Di Natale, and it's important to Senator Hinch, who indicated that he wanted to hear the answer, the threat to energy security and reliability in states like South Australia and Victoria—and across New South Wales if Liddell were to close—is a real threat. That is why we've been getting on as a government with focusing on how it is we enhance reliability in the system and issues of affordability that flow from that. It's why, as a result of the state-wide blackout that our state faced last year in September, we made sure emergency measures were put in place: at least two synchronous generators must be running at any given time, given the unreliability that comes from the wind generators within the system in South Australia. It's why we've also taken action to ensure that a new generator-reliability obligation is in place to ensure that intermittent sources of generation have an appropriate level of backup in place to guard against blackouts. It's why we've taken the action, in relation to energy security obligations, to provide necessary support services around frequency control and ancillary services and inertia—again, to deal with the issues that come from having a higher reliance on intermittent sources of energy rather than on base load dispatchable power sources. We want to make sure as well, as I indicated in my previous answer, that large generators have a minimum period before closure. Ideally, we want to extend the life of those large generators to get maximum use out of the investment, maximum reliability into the system—again, to keep prices down. Senator Cameron AI6 Those filthy pollutant coal fired generators! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Cameron, of course, wants to see jobs lost in the Hunter Valley. He wants to see Liddell gone as soon as possible. But we on this side want to make sure that we actually keep those jobs, where we can, and, importantly, keep affordability and reliability in our energy system. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question. 14:26 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister outline the issues highlighted by the Australian Energy Market Operator concerning base load dispatchable power? Senator Cameron interjecting— 14:26 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It's remarkable the interjections coming across here from Senator Cameron who seems to be taking great delight in the concept that the Liddell plant might close. I heard Mr Fitzgibbon on radio this morning saying he'd love it if the life of Liddell could be extended; he'd love to see those jobs survive. While he was being cynical about it and while he was saying that he didn't think it could happen, he at least was positive about the prospects of saving those jobs. Senator Cameron seems to be wishing them away even faster than 2022. The AEMO review has highlighted, very clearly, the importance of base load dispatchable power to make sure there is enough in the system. It has highlighted that the closure of Liddell in 2022 would create a supply shortfall, would exacerbate and replicate the problems we have seen in South Australia and Victoria. That is why we are taking every possible step to make sure that is avoided. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question. 14:27 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Is the minister aware of any risks to a reliable and stable energy system? 14:28 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The ignorance from those opposite is on display for all to see when it comes to the risks to a reliable energy system—but, as well, the blindness of the different state and territory governments: Victoria, who continue to charge on ahead in the pursuit of their own renewable energy target, or our home state of South Australia, where the madness is on display that, having closed down the coal fired Northern Power Station, having developed an excessive reliability on renewable energies, the solution, apparently, is now diesel generation. At a cost of $110 million, the diesel generators will be fired up using 80,000 litres an hour of diesel—80,000 litres an hour of diesel is apparently what's going to be required to keep the lights on in our home state. That, of course, is not acceptable. It's why as a government we're investing in smart solutions, sustainable solutions, long-term solutions and making the market— (Time expired) Drug and Alcohol Abuse 6503 14:29 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Nash. During the Senate inquiry into the government's welfare reform bill, Professor Alison Ritter of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre told me, 'There is a model that I worked on that developed state-by-state estimates of unmet demand for alcohol and other drugs treatment. Those data are theoretically available. The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy said we were not able to release those results and they were not to be made available to anyone who requested them.' Professor Ritter advised the direction to not make the information public occurred in 2014 and again about 12 months ago. Professor Ritter went on to state that, in her opinion, the concern from the ministerial council was that it would identify the substantial responsibility that the states and territories and the Commonwealth government needed to start to take in relation to the appalling situation in relation to drug treatment. Will the government table in the Senate the model and the technical manual referred to by Professor Ritter and, if not, why not? 14:30 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I thank the senator for the question and for some advance notice of it and note her genuine concern for these issues. I have sought advice from the Minister for Health's office. That advice provides that the government is not in a position to table the Drug and Alcohol Clinical Care and Prevention Project model and technical report in the Senate as they were commissioned under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, now replaced by the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum. That council determined not to release the model. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a supplementary question? 14:30 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia The development of the model and the manual known previously as the Drug and Alcohol Clinical Care and Prevention Project commenced approximately eight years ago and was completed in 2013. Its development was commissioned by the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs. Will the Commonwealth commission an update to the model so that it can be best used to inform governments and organisations about unmet drug and alcohol rehabilitation needs? 14:31 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales My advice is that, at this stage, there has been no decision to update the model. This would be a matter for the MDAF. The Commonwealth does not collect data on unmet demand in the specialist drug and alcohol treatment sector. The majority of the Commonwealth drug and alcohol treatment funding is provided to the primary health networks to commission services. PHNs have carried out extensive community consultations and region based needs assessments to identify the gaps in service delivery and address the needs of their local communities. In relation to state-by-state data for unmet demand, this would need to be requested from the states and territories. The states and territories are primarily responsible for funding and operating drug and alcohol services. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a final supplementary question? 14:32 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia Noting some states and territories are apparently using the model and noting the National Ice Taskforce strategy saw $244 million distributed nationally for drug treatment and there is a current proposal to drug-test welfare recipients, has the model been used to produce data to inform the distribution of this National Ice Action Strategy fund and the drug-testing policy? 14:32 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I say at the outset as the minister responsible at the time for the National Ice Taskforce strategy, with Minister Michael Keenan, I am very proud of that $244 million that we saw distributed out there for dealing with ice, which is one of the worst scourges we've seen across our country. The Drug and Alcohol Clinical Care and Prevention Project determines how to allocate different types of services by region. However, local demand for additional services under the National Ice Action Strategy were based on analyses conducted by PHNs because they had the most up-to-date information on those service needs. The model was not used to distribute funding for the National Ice Action Strategy treatment services, and questions about the proposed drug testing of welfare recipients should be referred to those relevant ministers. Registered Organisations 6504 14:33 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on recent reports concerning the funding arrangements of registered organisations? 14:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Paterson, for the question—and, yes, I can. As journalist Simon Benson has reported in The Australian this morning: The nation’s largest trade unions have amassed a political war machine totalling more than $1.5 billion in assets and a combined income stream estimated at $900 million a year, despite a continuing decline in their membership base. So what we've got here is the unions quite literally amassing billions of dollars whilst at the same time, paradoxically, their membership base is now doing this. Unions actually now only represent 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, yet they are asset-rich and receive hundreds of millions of dollars in income streams each year. In fact, the CFMEU have an accumulated asset base of $206 million, with a yearly income stream of $123 million. The issue is this: the union movement have moved away from their previous core business of representing the Australian worker, and they now have become nothing more and nothing less than a profit-making business in their own right. And do you know what this profit-making business does? It runs a small subsidiary company known as the Australian Labor Party. But get this—and it goes to what Senator Cormann has said—unions can no longer say that they are standing up for the average Australian and bemoan the big corporations who they claim not to do anything with, because the unions are now the big end of town. (Time expired) Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senators on my left, the noise is unacceptable. Senator Paterson, a supplementary question. 14:35 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, I think you've hit a sore point here. Is the minister aware of any concerns that have been raised about these organisations receiving significant funding from superannuation funds? 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia There has been, given that we now know how much the unions have amassed, but more than that— An opposition senator interjecting — Senator CASH I0M I did hear the comment on the other side, 'What's wrong with making a profit?' Absolutely nothing, but most other people have to pay tax on it. Guess what? The unions pay no tax. That's something the Australian people didn't know. Read the comments online—they are very interested in why a $1.5 billion asset base and a $900 million revenue stream pays absolutely no tax. In relation to superannuation funds, superannuation funds are there for the benefit of the members, one would think. Unless, of course, you are an industry super fund, because industry super funds over the last 10 years have made $53 million in payments to Labor-aligned unions, who have then given $65 million to the subsidiary company, the Australian Labor Party. That is not representing the interests of your members. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question. 14:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Don't worry, colleagues, there is more. What concerns have been raised about the regulation of these organisations? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Whilst unions—and obviously it does excite their political subsidiary, the Australian Labor Party—fight against tax reductions for small businesses and propose an increase in taxes for individuals, the unions conveniently, despite their $1.5 billion asset base, despite their $900 million revenue stream each year, pay no tax—no tax at all! Unions should be using their privileged tax-free position to advocate for their members. Instead, what they now do, the union movement of 2017, when they talk about inequality, maybe they're talking about the inequality of having to pay tax when you're a business and not having to pay tax when you're a union. That's inequality if ever I've seen it. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU I would ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw that. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Macdonald, I didn't hear what may have been said, but I'm asking you, if you did say something unparliamentary, please withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I said that it exposes them for the crims that they are, but, if that's unparliamentary, I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you. All senators should withdraw unconditionally. Energy 6506 14:39 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. I refer to Adam Creighton's article in The Australian newspaper last week entitled, 'The cost of going green: taxpayers hit with a $60bn power bill'. According to the article, for the 20 years from 2010 to 2030 taxpayers will be paying $60 billion in subsidies to the renewable energy sector, delivering the world's most expensive, unreliable power, particularly in our home state of South Australia. The more reliable and affordable base load power solutions, such as coal, gas and nuclear, are being built all over the world but are made unwelcome in Australia under Liberal and Labor governments. Why is your government ignoring overseas experience and throwing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at intermittent, expensive and unreliable renewable energy? 14:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Bernardi for his question and for the continued focus in the chamber today on energy reliability and affordability. As I have emphasised a couple of times already today, and said a number of times over the course of the week, the government is taking action across the different elements of the energy market—generation, transmission or networks, and retailers—to make sure that across all areas we work to enhance reliability as well as affordability. We see this as being critically important. This is not just something we've been doing over the last few months or even the last 12 months or so but something that since we came to office we've been working across the board on energy prices, affordability and reliability. Under our political opponents, it is correct that electricity prices rose by some 101 per cent. They doubled over the space of six years. Under our government, at the time when you were a member, Senator Bernardi, we saw energy prices record the largest fall on record, through the elimination of Labor's carbon tax, through other reforms to network regulation, and through steps that were taken around the Renewable Energy Target, including putting in place more realistic targets that were more in keeping with the original ambition. We are now working on looking to the future in terms of more secure generation frameworks. As we've indicated, that means keeping operating, existing generation facilities for as long as they are reasonably viable, as well as looking at what types of new, cheap, viable and affordable options can come online to provide for that dispatchable base load energy that AEMO recognises as being so important. That is where projects such as Snowy Hydro 2.0 come in, which can provide significant additional generational capacity at the time that it's needed in the market, and that will put prices down at those moments. (Time expired) 14:42 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, your government has teamed up with the Labor predecessors to commit $60 billion of taxpayer funds and subsidies on expensive and unreliable renewable energy. How many megawatts of base load capacity in 21st century nuclear power generation could be built with $60 billion? 14:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm sure it won't be a surprise to Senator Bernardi or the chamber that I don't have an estimate for a hypothetical question of what $60 billion could buy in nuclear generation capacity. I would note that there have been various studies—by academia, parts of industry and parts of government—over a number of years about the economics of nuclear generation in Australia. Generally, those studies have found that nuclear generation has not proven to be something that is commercially attractive to potential investors. Senator Bernardi interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Bernardi, I hear your interjection that, if we were to subsidise it, perhaps it would be attractive. What things like the Renewable Energy Target have sought to do is to incentivise the development of new capabilities, and they have had some success in that regard. But we have seen policies that have taken that too far, and that is what we are trying to correct at present. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question. 14:43 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia The Snowy Hydro scheme presently operates at 12 per cent of electricity generation capacity, yet the government's utopian Snowy Hydro 2.0 is, in truth, $2 billion spent on yet another electricity experiment. Why not save the taxpayers money and simply give contractual certainty to generators who could improve our base load capacity by building more reliable and affordable coal-fired power stations? 14:44 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm not entirely sure what Senator Bernardi means by 'contractual certainty', but I would emphasise, as I have already emphasised to the chamber today, that the government is genuine in its conversations with the owners of Liddell about how we work to extend the life of operations. These are proper, serious considerations to make sure that we do get the best and most out of our coal-fired generators. I'd say in relation to Snowy Hydro 2.0 that actually the confidence that the business case, and the likely return on investment of that, stacks up is very high. We already have around 350 people working on the feasibility and the development of that, and the potential for that to provide more certain base load power that can be put into the grid not only at the times when it's needed but also at the times when prices would otherwise be high, to drive down the wholesale price at those times, providing not only a reliability benefit but also an affordability benefit to households and businesses. (Time expired) O'Sullivan, Senator Barry 6507 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Nash. I refer to reports that Newlands Civil Construction has been awarded contracts valued at over $2.5 million as part of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project—a $1.6 billion project, 80 per cent funded by the Commonwealth government. What is the total value of works that Newlands Civil Construction has been contracted to deliver under the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project? 14:46 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I'll take that on notice, get information from the minister responsible and bring it back to the Senate. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Watt, a supplementary question. 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I venture to suggest that the answer is very close to the minister if she'd like to take it up. Has Minister Chester or his office requested or received advice as to whether Senator O'Sullivan has received a direct or indirect benefit as a result of any contracts under the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project? 14:46 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I'll also take that on notice. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Watt, a final supplementary question. 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland If only we could ask Senator O'Sullivan! Given that Senator O'Sullivan stands to benefit under a $2.5 million contract, what assurance can the minister provide to the Senate that all dealings have been appropriately and legitimately entered into? 14:47 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales This is not a matter of which I am aware, and any information I can provide to the senator I'll bring back for him. Registered Organisations 6508 14:47 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's earlier answers to Senator Paterson's questions concerning the increased funding to registered organisations. Can the minister advise the Senate how this increase in funding has resulted in improved services for the members of these organisations? 14:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, it hasn't resulted in improved services for the members of these registered organisations. You would think that unions that have $1.5 billion in assets and an estimated revenue stream annually of $900 million would be effective in representing the interests of their members, but the bad news for members in 2017 is that this is not the case. That, colleagues, may be why union membership is dwindling, but what we've seen time and time again is that some of the wealthiest unions in the country have been doing deals with big business—and we go back to big unions, big business. These deals cut the penalty rates for their own members. What we've also seen time and time again is that unions have been doing deals—again, big unions, big business—where they take payments from employers, who, in turn, ensure that the workers are worse off. Let me give you some examples in relation to the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. He knows all about this, because this is what his union, the Australian Workers' Union, the AWU, did. They took payments from companies who, at the same time, were laying off factory workers. What they were doing at the same time as they were taking the money was pushing permanent workers on to labour hire arrangements. But also, colleagues, at the same time as the unions were taking money from the employer business, they were slashing and abolishing the penalty rates of the workers they both allegedly represented. Unions are no longer representing their members. They talk about big business because they are big business, and they should be acknowledged as such. The PRESIDENT e5v A supplementary question, Senator Reynolds. 14:50 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Is the minister aware of changes in the membership fees of registered organisations? 14:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is another one, unions again: $1.5 billion in assets, $900 million in estimated annual revenue stream. You would actually think, with that type of profit—I don't know about you, colleagues—that you would look at actually reducing the membership fees of the members. Let me tell you about, again, the AWU. The AWU earlier this year committed to raising its standard membership fees by more than $50 per year, but on top of that they're going to index it to inflation. In Victoria the CFMEU construction division charges $800 per year—a hundred dollars higher than it was three years ago. I can only assume that because of the number of fines it has racked up, tens of millions of dollars, it needed to raise the membership fees of its members so that it could pay the fines that it is incurring. This is an absolute disgrace! The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question. 14:51 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In light of that response, I would ask the minister: is she aware of any improved outcomes for members of registered organisations as a result of all of these considerable extra funds? What are they getting? 14:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, sadly, workers have not been the beneficiaries of the increasing wealth of the unions they belong to. In fact, it is actually now quite the opposite. Again, if I go to the penalty rates example, this is an issue by which the unions themselves have been very, very vocal in this space. But what we've actually seen is, instead of promoting the interests of their workers, they work with the big end of town to collectively promote their own interests at the expense of the workers they allegedly represent. Let's look at low-paid workers at Coles, McDonald's, Woolworths, KFC, Just Jeans, Big W, Target—the list goes on and on and on. They have all had their penalty rates cut by their unions. So, while these workers, under the deals being done, are getting poorer, every day the unions are getting richer. Community Development Grants Program 6509 14:52 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales I'm going to shock everyone here. My policy question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Grant program guidelines for the coalition government's $940 million Community Development Grants Program indicate that only applications 'identified by the Australian government will be considered'. Of the $940 million, Minister, how much has been allocated to projects in the Hunter Valley? Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan! Senator Dastyari interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Dastyari, you've asked your question. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Wong! 14:53 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales In relation to the Hunter Valley, I'll take that on notice. But I would say to the Senate—and I appreciate the question from the senator; it is a policy portfolio related question—and point out again the fact that over the last few days there've been a number of questions from the Labor Party about issues that the people of Australia simply don't see as a priority. We've seen eight questions since Monday morning—two non-portfolio questions. Do you know how many questions the Labor Party have asked me about regional development since the beginning of the year? Thirty? Twenty? Ten? Two. There've been two questions since the beginning of the year on my portfolio. Since Monday morning, just in a very few short hours, we've seen eight on an issue that the Australian people don't see as a priority. Again, it's incredibly disappointing that the Labor Party are again showing their disregard for regional people. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Dastyari, a supplementary question. 14:54 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales My supplementary question is: can the minister confirm that while $12 million has been expended on the New South Wales Central Coast, only $305,000 has been awarded to projects in the Hunter? Is this consistent with the Commonwealth grant guidelines, which say: Competitive merit based processes should be used to allocate grants … Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Give us all money on an equal basis! Senator Dastyari interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Dastyari, you've asked your question. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 No, mate, they run you! They've got you! Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Wong. Order! The minister has the call. 14:55 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales There are a number of grants programs that the government run in my portfolio area, including the area that Senator Dastyari is talking about. The decisions that are made around those projects and the funding that is expended are done on a very sensible and measured basis. This government makes absolutely no apology for providing funding to communities that need that funding from the government in partnership to ensure that they have strong and sustainable futures. Those decisions are made on merit. They are made in a very balanced and well-judged way, and we are not taking a backwards step from continuing to work in partnership with our communities so that those communities have strong futures. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Dastyari, a final supplementary question. 14:56 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales My final supplementary question is: given the obvious disparity in the distribution of funds under the program, is the minister concerned that community groups who fail to achieve funding will capitalise on her potential ineligibility and challenge her decisions? 14:56 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Again, wouldn't it be refreshing if the Labor Party focused on the things that were important for our communities, particularly across regional Australia? The senator has made a number of assertions there. I am very confident in the capacity of our processes to deliver out to our communities funding that is balanced, well thought out and measured. We take no backwards step from doing that. We identify where that need is, we put the proper processes in place and funding is expended accordingly. Office of the eSafety Commissioner 6511 14:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on the work of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and on how the Turnbull government is helping Australians to stay safe online? 14:57 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Hume. I think all colleagues would be aware of the establishment of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in 2015. It's something that was well received across the chamber. Ms Julie Inman-Grant commenced in the role in January of this year, and I think all colleagues who have had dealings with her would recognise the great work she's doing. She has a wealth of experience in online safety policy at both the global and the local level. She has played pivotal roles in the development of the first Online Safety Summit for Children in 1996 and in helping shape the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015. I'm sure that all colleagues will also agree that the safety and wellbeing of kids online is important. On Sunday I was very pleased to launch National eSmart Week, which is a powerful and forward-thinking initiative set up by the Alannah and Madeline Foundation. National eSmart Week is about the promotion of tools, solutions and ideas to help increase digital literacy and reduce cyberbullying throughout Australia. Some 2,300 schools are participating in eSmart Schools, more than 70 per cent of Australia's 1,500 libraries are participating in eSmart Libraries, and it's also great to note that more than 230,000 kids have registered for an eSmart Digital Licence, which is a terrific thing. It is also important to recognise that given the increase in the scope of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner this government has changed its mandate and retitled it the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to recognise the breadth of their important work. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hume, a supplementary question. 14:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can the minister outline how the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is protecting women from harm online? 14:59 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria In 2015, the Prime Minister announced a $100 million package of measures to provide a safety net for those people, particularly women and children, at high risk of experiencing domestic violence. Senator Cash, the Minister for Women, has been a champion of this cause and initiative. Under this program, $2.1 million in funding has been provided to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to develop a resource package of online measures for those at high risk of experiencing domestic violence, and the eSafetyWomen site was launched in 2016. Also, in 2016, the government announced additional support of $10 million to support victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, under the $100 million allocated for the third action plan of theNational plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010-2022. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hume, a final supplementary question. 15:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can the minister further outline how the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is assisting senior Australians? 15:01 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Colleagues will be aware that older Australians are online in increasing numbers. They are enjoying connecting with family and friends but not all of them have the skills and they don't necessarily feel confident to take those first steps, which is why the government has announced an investment of $50 million to improve the digital literacy of senior Australians and to improve their safety online. Under this commitment, $16.9 million will be provided to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner over four years to develop and maintain an online digital portal for older Australians, and Minister Porter, in the other place, is actively involved with this as well. It's envisaged that the portal will be launched later this year. I'm sure all colleagues will be able to join together in recognising the good and important work that the eSafety Commissioner does. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU By leave, for one minute? The PRESIDENT e5v Yes. Senator Wong 00AOU I hope the Attorney gets better. I did promise him we wouldn't ask him a question today, because he was ill, and we honoured our promise! The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Brandis 008W7 Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 6512 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Newlands Civil Construction: Senator O'Sullivan 6512 15:02 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Mr President, yesterday Senator Chisolm asked me a question in relation to NDRRA payments. I seek leave to incorporate the answer. Leave granted. The document read as follows— State and territory governments are responsible for administering Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) assistance, in accordance with their responsibility for disaster management. As such, the reconstruction of damaged assets is managed at the state and local government level. Under the NDRRA, the Australian Government provides funding on a reimbursement basis directly to state or territory governments, however the Australian Government does not hold information about the individual contracts entered into by state or local governments for which funding may be provided. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 6513 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Energy 6513 15:02 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. We have had a decade of obstructionism and stupidity from this rabble of a government when they were in opposition under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott—when they were run by Tony Abbott—and now under the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. Such a disappointment to everyone in the country. This is the guy who stood up and said he wouldn't lead a government that wasn't serious about dealing with climate change. This is a man who just ran away from every value and every principle he ever had. Senator Nash, who begged to be questioned on a policy issue and actually said, 'Ask me a question about what we're doing to improve energy affordability,' couldn't even answer the question after begging us to ask her a question on that very issue. She wasn't even prepared to come in here and deal with it. Yet this is a minister who is here under false pretences. She should do the same as her colleague in the National Party and stand down from the ministry until her capacity to sit here as a minister is determined by the High Court. This is a nonsense. This is a government in absolute crisis. This is a government just going from one crisis to another. I can tell Senator Nash that the question I actually asked her was whether it was true that wholesale prices had doubled under this government, and the answer is yes. I also asked her about the Finkel review. There was one overarching position in the Finkel review, which was that the Finkel review proposed a clean energy target. Yet all the troglodytes on the other side of the parliament, all these people who just don't believe in climate change—all the climate change deniers—will not allow the current Prime Minister to actually put a clean energy target in to do something about electricity prices in this country. I couldn't believe it when Senator Fawcett actually got up and asked the question and spoke about filthy polluting diesel generators. Obviously Senator Fawcett's never been in a power station. Well, I worked at Liddell power station for seven years, as a maintenance fitter, and I can tell you that if you ever want to see a dirty, polluting place, go to Liddell power station. It's filthy. Coal-fired power stations are absolutely filthy. Maybe, Senator Fawcett, AGL will let you go in and have a look at the power stations up there and see how dirty they are. They are full of dirt. They are full of coal dust. They are full of pollutants. And Liddell power station, a coal-fired power station—if you're talking about pollution coming out of a diesel generator, have a look at what 1,200 tonnes of coal an hour being burnt in an old-fashioned power station like Liddell power station looks like. I went to work at Liddell in 1974, when it was only two years old, and it was dirty, polluting and filthy then. You can imagine what it's like now. In 1972 the Holden Torana was the best-selling car in Australia, followed by the Datsun 180B. Well, that's what Liddell power station is: it's the equivalent of a Holden Torana or a Datsun 180B, with the technology that's in there. It is dirty, it is old, it is polluting, and we need to get jobs for people out of the power stations and into renewable energy and actually make a difference. This government does not have a clue about the real issues facing ordinary workers, ordinary Australians. You would have seen that if you were here during question time. They simply want to attack the union movement because they've got no policies, no way forward. (Time expired) 15:08 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania The Senate has, regrettably, just been subjected to five minutes of personal denigration by a Labor senator—nothing positive to provide to the discussion of policy matters in this country. It was an unedifying display of ugly, destructive language. There was tearing down of everybody and everything that Senator Cameron could turn his mind to. Well, I want to say to the Australian people that we on this side of the chamber, the Liberal-Nationals coalition, in fact don't want to tear down, don't want to destroy, don't want to denigrate. We are actually about building the nation, building opportunities, and that is what Senator Nash has been doing in her portfolio area and in the regional areas of this country. I refer to my home state of Tasmania, where just three or four short years ago we had the highest unemployment rate in the country: 8.1 per cent. Today it is below six per cent, bearing testament to the wonderful economic and social transition that has occurred courtesy of the policies of the Liberal-National parties at both federal and state levels. Getting people into jobs is not only an economic good. Sure, they become contributors to our economy; sure, they are no longer reliant on welfare. But there is also a great social good when you see thousands of your fellow Tasmanians going from welfare into employment, becoming self-reliant and being part of the economic mainstream. All the social data tells us that if people are given a job and have the opportunity of a job their mental health, their physical health, their self-esteem and their social interaction are all enhanced. This has been the task for this government over the past three plus years: to seek to grow the economy and to provide job opportunities for our fellow Australians so that they can become self-reliant and can become part of the economic and social mainstream of our nation. In stark contrast to the denigration, the personal vitriol, the nastiness that we had to endure from Senator Cameron's contribution, I want to talk about the positives, such as in my home state of Tasmania. We go to the very north of Australia—Senator Macdonald may well talk about this—the great northern development policies that we have for this country. These are the sorts of things that the Australian people want us as a government and as a parliament to get on with. But no, the Australian Labor Party cannot help itself. Devoid of any policy, having a cupboard that is completely barren of any policy ideas, it comes into this place and the other place simply to denigrate ministers who may have an issue in relation to a constitutional provision relating to dual citizenship, and then making mischief about that. Whilst the Labor Party concentrate on these political games, on this political gamesmanship, we as a government are getting on with the task of delivering to the people of Australia. That is what we're elected to do. That's what we're paid to do. That is what we are sworn to do. That is what we on this side are actually doing, actually achieving for the people of Australia. Back to my home state: not only has the unemployment rate gone down but the tourism numbers are burgeoning. Hobart Airport is being extended. The Midland Highway is being duplicated in many areas and upgraded. We are having new irrigation schemes put in. We are having a freight equalisation scheme for our exports, allowing us to hit the world market. The list goes on. I would invite those who especially bring the news to the Australian people to do a bit of a juxtaposition, a bit of a compare and contrast, and put the nastiness of Senator Cameron's contribution next to the actual achievements of the Liberal National Party government over the past three or four years. If they were to do that, the Australian people would see a government getting on with the task and not playing politics such as Senator Cameron and the Labor Party do. 15:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I also rise to discuss the real problems that regional Australia is suffering as a result of the paralysed government that we are seeing here, led by Malcolm Turnbull and distracted ministers, whose job it is to be sponsoring projects and economic activity in regional Queensland and across regional Australia but who are far too distracted by their own problems to do so. We know very well that Senator Nash, as the minister for regional Australia, is responsible, more than anyone in this entire parliament, for ensuring that projects are happening in regional Australia and that services are being delivered. But we know, unfortunately, that Senator Nash is so distracted by her own citizenship problems that she is incapable of turning attention to the real needs of regional Australia that are out there right now. Senator Nash, of course, is a member of a famous new party in Australian politics: the 'Dual Nationals'! You look at them every single day over there, and they're disappearing one by one. We've had Senator Canavan actually do the right thing and stand down from his role as minister, but neither Senator Nash nor her leader, Mr Joyce, have the decency to stand down from cabinet to allow the business of government to go on without this permanent cloud that remains over their heads while their citizenship is in doubt. This is more than just a political bunfight. The problem with Senator Nash and Mr Joyce not standing down from their ministries is that they are so distracted by their own personal citizenship queries that they can't get on with the business of their portfolios and deliver the services, infrastructure and jobs that regional Queensland and regional Australia so desperately need. We saw yet another embarrassing performance from Senator Nash here in question time today, where not only was she incapable of answering any question that was asked of her related to her portfolio but she was even incapable of answering questions that yesterday she wanted to be asked. Yesterday she came in here, attacked us for asking questions about her citizenship and listed a series of topics that we, in her view, should be asking her about. We did the right thing today. We turned up ready to ask those questions, and we asked those questions of her, but when we did so, she was completely unable to answer and said that she'd have to get back to us. Every single day we listen to this government moan about energy prices, and they are a real issue in much of Australia. The government ignores the fact that wholesale electricity prices have doubled under their watch over the last few years. Senator Nash is not even aware of this basic fact, but she's happy to stand up every day and criticise the Labor Party about energy prices. For every single region of Australia that we asked about today—whether it be the Bowen Basin, Far North Queensland, particularly around Cairns, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales—we were asking, 'What is the government doing to get projects and services happening in those parts of Australia?' and, remarkably, Senator Nash was incapable of answering, didn't know the answers, doesn't know what's going on in her portfolio and clearly doesn't know what's going on in regional Australia. That's not to mention the woeful answers that she was giving in relation to the concerns about Senator O'Sullivan's mixing of his business and his official duties. There is a reason that Senator Nash is incapable of answering these questions. She, like so many of her ministerial colleagues, is so distracted by the citizenship fiasco in which we're seeing this government engulfed that they are paralysed by inaction, when regional Australia has never needed a government more active in getting projects, services and infrastructure happening so that we get jobs moving again in regional Australia, which is the absolute top priority for so much of our country. As I get around regional Queensland, as I very often do, the things that people are constantly telling me they want this government focused on are getting jobs, particularly for young people, and getting new projects up and running. But no ideas are coming forward from this government, no money is being spent out of its programs, and the minister doesn't have the capacity to make decisions to get the projects and spending happening. People in regional Queensland want better health care, particularly mental health care. I was in Rockhampton only last week, talking to young people about their need for better mental health care. It's not happening under this government. They're not getting training and apprenticeship opportunities. These are the things that regional Australia wants; these are the things which Labor is coming forward on a regular basis with policies for. We need a minister who is not distracted. She should step down and let someone take on the job. 15:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I will begin by supporting the words of my colleague from Tasmania. Senator Nash is an extraordinary senator and an extraordinary minister. She is a great representative of New South Wales, a fine role model and an honest minister, extraordinarily hardworking and extremely competent. She is genuinely making a difference to people's lives in regional Australia. The personal targeting of Senator Nash by those opposite in the last couple of days, the last couple of question times, is nothing short of scandalous. To discuss the issue of her citizenship over and over again is little more than opportunistic at best and certainly grubby at worst. The only time, Senator Watt, that Senator Nash's citizenship is a distraction is in question time. In fact, for the last two days we have seen incredible tactics by those opposite. Coincidentally, before today, it seemed that almost all the questions from those opposite came from female senators, which I think was scandalous—a warped schoolyard mentality that those opposite should be ashamed of. At least today, although it was disingenuous in the extreme, you used the shroud of policy to cover up your criticisms of Senator Nash. It is quite amazing that those opposite continue to discuss issues of no interest to ordinary Australians. Senator Watt came in here talking about what's important to his state, yet he continues to talk about section 44. I can assure you section 44 is of no interest to anybody in Townsville or Bundaberg or Mackay. It's of no interest to anybody in Albany or Bunbury, for Senator Sterle. It is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to anybody in Albury or Gosford or Bathurst or Orange, for Senator Cameron. It is of no interest at all to anyone in Ceduna or Whyalla, for Senator Wong. Speaking as a senator for Victoria, it is of no interest whatsoever to anybody in Ballarat or Shepparton or Wangaratta or Geelong or Warrnambool or Hamilton. It is so frustrating for those of us on this side of the chamber to see Senator Nash, who does an extraordinary job in regional Australia, being attacked so unnecessarily. She was asked a question today on energy policy—how disingenuous was that? She was the wrong minister to ask that question of, and those opposite knew that. Senator Birmingham was the correct minister to ask, yet you pushed Senator Nash, asking her that question as a shroud to criticise her over her citizenship status. That is extraordinary. You know full well that, had you asked that question of Senator Birmingham, the most appropriate minister, you would have heard exactly how the Turnbull government is putting downward pressure on energy prices, with two million households getting better deals, transparency and clarity in comparing deals, intervention in the gas market that ensures domestic supply, abolition of limited merits reviews to stop the networks gaming the system, and of course the announcement of Snowy Hydro 2.0—a game-changing renewable energy policy. Mr Marles said the ALP knew that gas prices would rise when you opened the market to foreign exports. This has been a shameless deflection by Senator Cameron, shrouding Senator Nash's citizenship issue with energy policy questions. What extraordinary behaviour, rather than talking about what's important to Australians. What is important to Australians? This government is dealing with exactly what is important to Australians. First of all, there is a national security issue that overrides anything else. Quite frankly, we are at a point where North Korea is displaying a level of brinkmanship that we probably haven't seen since the Cuban missile crisis, yet that did not come up even once today from this opposition. No-one asked about the security threats, about the grave danger posed by North Korea and what the Turnbull government is doing about it by committing to a path of diplomatic and economic pressure. No-one asked about the economy—extraordinary. Rather than talking about promoting investment, encouraging entrepreneurship, reducing red tape and the burdensome bureaucracy, lowering taxes and supporting more jobs, you spoke again about Senator Nash. Shame on the opposition. Tomorrow, please talk about something that matters to ordinary Australians. (Time expired) 15:23 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania Senator Nash demands that we ask her questions on issues that, as a National Party senator, we know would be dear to her heart in her own state, such as energy affordability—something that I know is on the minds of many a senator in this place. But when we ask her such questions, as we did here today, she doesn't even know that wholesale prices have doubled under her own government. That is a fairly basic thing that you would think Senator Nash would know. I actually think Senator Nash probably did know that, and in hindsight is thinking, 'That's right—wholesale prices have doubled under this government.' But the problem is that Senator Nash's mind is distracted. Her mind is currently distracted because of this citizenship fiasco that has been taking up a lot of her time, so much so that she had to put on the front page of her website a statement outlining her position in relation to this. Her position, unfortunately, is very different to that of her colleague Senator Canavan in that she has remained on the front bench. The big concern here is that there are a number of questions about the decisions she is making as minister while this citizenship fiasco hangs over her head. If I were in Senator Nash's position—just thinking about it for a moment—if I were a minister of the Crown and had this hanging over my head, I know what I would do. I would do exactly what Senator Canavan has done. I wouldn't remain on the front bench. I wouldn't remain holding onto ministerial decision-making. I would step down until the issues were resolved. That's my take on it as a matter of integrity and as a matter of what the right thing to do is. But if you don't want to take my word for it, take Professor George Williams' word for it. He is, as everyone knows, the dean of a law faculty and a very much acknowledged constitutional expert. He gave an address at the National Press Club recently and explained, in great detail, the problem that hangs over Senator Nash and Senator Canavan. He advised that the wisest course of action for Minister Nash, and also Minister Joyce, was to not only refrain from decision-making but also step down, pending the outcome of the High Court hearing. That, I think, would be the most sensible thing for Senator Nash to do, after the expose that we had today from her and that we've had on subsequent days this week in relation to her efforts in answering some pretty basic questions about things that she should know. Unfortunately, we have a glass-jaw attitude going on with Senator Nash. She's dug herself into a hole and probably feels that it's too late for her to step down. Well, it's not too late for her to step down. We're only talking about a month or so until the High Court hearing occurs. She needs to reflect that there is an inconsistency at the moment in the National Party with what has occurred in relation to Senator Canavan, who did resign, and Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, who have not done so. The number of questions that leaves unanswered really makes the government look like a shambles. I will share the analogy that Senator Kitching used the other day for this whole dual citizenship fiasco. She said that it reminded her of Star Wars, when the emperor was dead, Darth Vader was dying and the Death Star was crashing—that is this government. I think that's quite a fitting analogy. Not that I'm a huge Star Wars goer, but I can see the characters and connection that one could make with such a situation because of what we've ended up with here. What we've had is a huge distraction today from Senator Nash. I'm sure she's embarrassed, and I think— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Energy 6518 15:28 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to energy policy. Senator Birmingham was confronted with a quote from the Prime Minister, who said today that there had been a colossal failure in the planning of our energy system. He was confronted with the fact that we actually agreed with that statement. But the question is: what is the cause of that failure? There is no question, as the Energy Regulator today themselves have said, that that catastrophic failure is a result of a failure in planning and a failure in ensuring that Australia sets up its energy sector for the future. The catastrophic rise in energy prices, the questions around energy security and the issue around reliability all lie at the feet of the Abbott and Turnbull governments, who are responsible for creating so much uncertainty, which has in itself flowed on to higher wholesale prices. We had, as a result of the 2010 power-sharing agreement between the Greens, the Labor Party and the crossbench, some of the most effective legislation to govern the energy sector anywhere in the world—in fact, they were the words of the International Energy Agency itself. We had a carbon price which provided certainty and a clear pathway to clean energy investment, as did the renewable energy target. But we saw the carbon price abolished and then the renewable energy target slashed, with the support of the Labor Party, turning away clean energy investors and creating much uncertainty in the energy sector. Wholesale prices have actually doubled since the repeal of the carbon price, yet the government blame the opposition for the problems that they themselves have created. It is true that the government has said that it's not taking an ideological approach. In some ways, that is true, because what we see is a market mechanism which one would think would be the most sensible position and a position ideologically aligned to Liberal values, yet they trashed it. They trashed it. The notion of market certainty is one that one would think would align with Liberal values, but they destroyed that, too. No, their ideology is one where they see cleantech progress as somehow being aligned with progressive politics—that somehow this is the domain of the progressive Left, not the domain of science and evidence. But what we're seeing now is this market ascendance of clean energy and the crashing economics of coal and gas. We're seeing that happen now, with the government refusing to acknowledge reality, and as a result we are seeing a catastrophic failure of the government's own making. We know, for example, that, when AEMO, the energy regulator, say that there may be a gap in electricity supply as a result of the closure of some coal-fired power stations, they're correct. But that would have been avoided if we had more solar and wind in the system, which would have happened under the previous renewable energy target—something that the government destroyed, taking away 8,000 megawatt hours from solar and wind. That's the reason that we're in the mess that we are confronted with. Of course, AEMO have given us a clear blueprint for how we should address this issue, and it's a blueprint that aligns perfectly with what the Greens have been saying for many years: if we are to reduce emissions and tackle dangerous climate change, if we are to ensure reliability and affordability for Australians right around the country, what's required is some certainty and a plan—a clear plan. That plan does require a timetable to close down coal-fired power stations before 2030, and, indeed, that's precisely the model that AGL was offering. Renewable businesses could plan around 2022, knowing that, when the 2,000 megawatts come offline, they will have completed a number of projects to supplement that extra demand. We know that the regulator also talked about options like embracing a modern grid, a smart grid, accelerating the uptake of new technologies like storage, smart software and demand management. We know that the Snowy hydro could be part of the response as well. But the reality is that coal has no long-term future and that the future lies with renewables like solar and wind, with storage and with demand management. That is the pathway for the future. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change and bring prices down, that's what we need to do. Question agreed to. NOTICES 6519 NOTICES Presentation 6519 Withdrawal 6525 15:34 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for 14 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Code—Sugar) Regulations 2017. Withdrawal 6525 15:34 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 14 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2017. Presentation 6525 15:34 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows— AUSTRALIAN BORDER FORCE AMENDMENT (PROTECTED INFORMATION) BILL Purpose of the Bill The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill would amend the secrecy and disclosure provisions in the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (the ABF Act) to: a) amend the definition of "protected information" to refer to specific categories of information and ensure that all protected information that comes into the possession of an entrusted person is covered; and b) amend several provisions in Part 6 of the ABF Act to streamline the administration of the secrecy and disclosure regime. Reasons for Urgency Proceedings have commenced in the High Court of Australia challenging the validity of Part 6 of the ABF Act, which contains the secrecy and disclosure regime supporting the effective management of Australia's borders. The challenge is on the basis that the regime breaches the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution. The Commonwealth is actively defending the constitutionality of Part 6 of the ABF Act. However in the meantime the Government is seeking to clarify the operation of Part 6 of the ABF Act to improve the administration of the secrecy and disclosure regime and ensure that relevant information can be appropriately protected and disclosed. … … … DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2017 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill To make small but significant changes to defence's practices and operations. Some stem from recommendations to Government and some deliver on election commitments. Reasons for Urgency There is urgency to this Bill's implementation of greater protections for Reserve members. The Bill will also amend the Intelligence Service Act to transfer the hydrographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial Office. It will also make smaller but necessary amendments the Australian Defence Force superannuation legislation to ensure financial entitlements to dependents. … … … HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (A MORE SUSTAINABLE, RESPONSIVE AND TRANSPARENT HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM) BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill The bill will ensure a stronger, more innovative and fairer system of higher education that preserves equity of access while achieving savings outlined in the Budget, including by: rebalancing the costs of higher education between the taxpayers and students introducing measures to improve the sustainability of the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) expanding potential areas of course innovation and student choice enhancing accountability requirements. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill as soon as possible is essential in order for the higher education sector and affected agencies to implement the new measures, many of which commence from 1 January 2018. The bill will reinvigorate higher education in Australia by implementing a range of measures. These measures are designed to preserve access to tertiary education while achieving necessary savings. The 2014-15 Budget reforms to higher education were ambitious. Some measures have passed while others have been set aside or deferred. This bill resolves the uncertainty of the past two years and contributes to Budget repair. The measures reflect a widespread and careful consultation process with the community, students, business and industry, the sector and expert advisers. Many of these stakeholders accept that there are further efficiencies to be gained within the multi‑billion dollar annual Commonwealth contribution to higher education. This bill will require universities to identify those efficiencies. The bill also requires students to absorb a modest rise in the costs of their tuition, while still maintaining a strong taxpayer contribution towards these costs. Across all students, the taxpayer will continue to meet the majority of the costs of teaching and learning in universities. Changes to HELP repayment thresholds and rates, and to how the thresholds are indexed, will affect all debtors with HELP loans (including VET student loans). In turn, this affects agencies, including the Department of Education and Training and the Australian Taxation Office, that require lead time to implement systems changes and to communicate with their clients about how the changes affect them. The Bill will incentivise course innovation and expand student choice, particularly in non-research postgraduate study and in sub-bachelor and enabling courses. It will also enhance transparency and accountability within the sector by requiring greater transparency in financial matters and by linking a portion of a provider's Commonwealth grants to improvements in performance, using criteria to be agreed with the sector. Passage of this bill as soon as possible will provide the necessary time for the education sector, students, and affected agencies to prepare for the changes commencing in 2018. … … … IMPORTED FOOD CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill The Bill will amend the Imported Food Control Act 1992 to strengthen the current regulatory regime to manage imported food safety risks by: holding importers accountable for the safety of imported food; incentivise importers to source safe food; and improving the department's ability to identify and respond to imported food safety issues. It is important that there are preventative controls in place throughout the supply chain to provide assurance of food safety. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill during the spring 2017 sittings will ensure that Australia continues to have a robust and word-class food management system. The department currently relies on a risk-based inspection scheme and at-border testing. The Bill will enhance the current food safety system by introducing a new capacity for the department to hold food at the border where there are concerns about the safety of the food and the scientific approach to assess its safety is not established. These amendments will ensure that we can respond to new and emerging risks that may leave consumers vulnerable to unsafe food entering the domestic food system. The states and territories also play an essential part in Australia's domestic food safety management system. Passage of the Bill in the 2017 spring sittings will enable Commonwealth legislation to align with state and territory legislation, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden for Australian businesses. The amendments will strengthen Australia's food safety system by enabling the Australian government to share information to support jurisdictions to effectively perform their role in food safety management. … … … SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PAYMENT INTEGRITY) BILL Purpose of the Bill The Bill will increase the residence requirements for Australian pensions from 1 July 2018; stop the payment of the Pension Supplement after six weeks of a temporary overseas absence and immediately for permanent departures from 1 January 2018; increase the maximum Liquid Assets Test Waiting Period from 13 weeks to 26 weeks from 20 September 2018; and from 1 July 2018 introduce a consistent 30 cents in the dollar income test taper for Family Tax Benefit Part A families with a household income in excess of the higher income free area. Reasons for Urgency To enable successful implementation from 1 January 2018, the Bill must be passed as soon as possible, ideally during September 2017. This will allow sufficient time for necessary ICT, regulatory and guideline changes to support this measure. … … … SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE REFORM) BILL Purpose of the Bill The bill will make a range of reforms to welfare payments, including introducing a new JobSeeker payment as the main working age payment and a new compliance framework. New measures will be introduced to address substance misuse, remove intent to claim provisions and streamline prosecution referrals and tax file collection processes. The Bill will also include measures to encourage faster connection to employment services, introduce new or stronger participation requirements and align Social Security and Disability Discrimination law. Reasons for Urgency To enable successful implementation of those measures to commence from 1 January 2018, the Bill must be passed as soon as possible, ideally during September 2017. This will allow sufficient time for necessary ICT, regulatory and guideline changes to support the measures. … … … STATUE UPDATE (SMALLER GOVERNMENT) BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill The Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 (the Bill) would, if enacted, repeal three Acts and amend ten Acts across the Commonwealth to support the implementation of the Government's smaller government agenda. Reasons for Urgency Schedule 7 of the Bill repeals relevant sections of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2011 (ASIC Act) to abolish the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC). It is important that the Senate move swiftly to abolish the CAMAC to improve coordination and accountability reduce the costs associated with separate governance arrangements and increase efficiency in how public funds are used to deliver services to the community. … … … VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OMNIBUS) BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill The Bill would implement several amendments to veterans' legislation to clarify, improve, or streamline the operation of the law. Reasons for Urgency The Department is undertaking major transformation of its business and passage of the measures in this Bill in the 2017 Spring sittings will underpin that transformation to better support a veteran centric model of service delivery. The Schedule 2 amendments to Part XIB of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 improve the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Counsel (SMRC) These measures will all support improvements in the SMRC process and enable quicker reviews of Statements of Principles by the SRMC, which is needed to provide faster decisions for veterans' claims. The Schedule 4 amendments strengthen the legislative foundation for providing certain payments to employers under the Employer Incentive Scheme in the form of wage subsidies to encourage employers to engage injured veterans. The Schedule 5 amendments facilitate information sharing between the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to reduce the time taken to process superannuation benefits and incapacity payment claims. BUSINESS 6529 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 6529 15:35 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Dastyari for 7 September 2017, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Gallacher for 14 September 2017, on account of parliamentary business; (c) Senator Ketter from 16 to 19 October 2017, for personal reasons; and (d) Senator Moore for 12 September 2017, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. NOTICES 6529 NOTICES Postponement 6529 COMMITTEES 6529 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 6529 Reference 6529 15:37 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senators Brockman, Georgiou and Smith, move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2017: The future of rugby union in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) the Australian Rugby Union Board deliberations leading to the decision to reduce Australian teams from five to four in the national competition; (b) whether there continues to be a truly national rugby union footprint in Australia; (c) the role of national and state-based bodies in encouraging greater national participation in rugby union; (d) the corporate governance arrangements and composition of national and state-based rugby union bodies, including community representation on those bodies; (e) the impact of the decision to reduce the number of Australia teams on national participation in rugby union; and (f) any other related matters. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 6530 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 6530 15:37 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017 Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6530 MOTIONS Father's Day 6530 15:38 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I, and also on behalf of Senators Bushby, Abetz, Reynolds, Seselja and Gichuhi, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Father's Day recognises the contribution that fathers make to their children's lives, and is celebrated by millions of families on the first Sunday of September every year, and (ii) Dads4Kids Father's Day advertisements have been aired on Australian television since 2002 without being classed as political; (b) rejects any determination that implies honouring the role of the father on Father's Day is a political message; and (c) laments that public discourse has entered a phase where it is debated whether the image of a father singing a lullaby to his child is a contentious political message. 15:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Father's Day is a fantastic tradition that honours the role that father figures play in our lives and, particularly, in the lives of children. Free TV has clarified in a statement that it asked for an authorisation to be included at the end of a proposed advertisement by Dads4Kids, but Dads4Kids declined, so the advertisement did not run. During debate in the other place just last night on a government bill to expand authorisation requirements, authorisations were described by the government's own members as 'necessary to ensure our democracy'. Dads4Kids actively advocates against marriage equality and LGBTIQ rights. At a time when Australians are about to participate in a postal survey on marriage equality, it is understandable why Free TV believed it was appropriate for it to include an authorisation. If anyone is politicising Father's Day, it's the senators who have moved this motion. 15:39 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RICE 155410 The Greens will also not be supporting this motion, but not because we don't support Father's Day. We think Father's Day is a terrific institution, but the motion, as worded, is factually incorrect. A father singing a lullaby to his child is not political, and any notion suggesting that honouring the role of the father on Father's Day as political is incorrect. However, Dads4Kids, the organisation behind the advertisement, has campaigned heavily against marriage equality and also advocates in support of gay conversion theory. So it is very clear in the context of the current debate about marriage equality, the campaigning about marriage equality and the postal plebiscite, that this advertisement needed an authorisation. We are in a different environment this year than at the same time as Father's Day last year. It is very clear that an authorisation is needed. It's standard practice for political broadcast advertising. 15:40 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator SESELJA HZE I rise in response to the objections to this motion of the Labor Party and the Greens, and in relation to what Senator Gallagher had to say. Those ads have been running for many years, uncontroversially it seems. Any objective observer looking at those ads would say that something simply promoting fatherhood and Father's Day and encouraging men to be good dads is not political. To suggest now that that is somehow political and therefore needs a political authorisation is ridiculous. That's what this motion is highlighting. I find it extraordinary that the Labor Party and the Greens wouldn't support this. I think the vast majority of Australians would look at the idea that Father's Day is now a political statement, and supporting Father's Day is now a political statement, as being absolutely absurd. 15:41 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 I'm supporting the Greens and the opposition on this issue. Father's Day is not political and should not be political. Dads4Kids is political and conversion therapy has been disproven around the world. I'm more than happy and proud to support the opposition on this motion. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator O'Sullivan be agreed to. Question agreed to. Indigenous Literacy Day 6532 15:42 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I ask to add the names of Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson to notice of motion No. 458. The PRESIDENT e5v So added. Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 I, and also on behalf of Senator McCarthy and Senator Dodson, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Indigenous Literacy Day is held on 6 September, (ii) it is a national celebration of Indigenous culture, stories, language and literacy, (iii) on Indigenous Literacy Day attention is focused on the disadvantages experienced in remote communities, and Australians are encouraged to raise funds and advocate for more equal access to literacy resources for remote communities – events are held around the country, (iv) only a quarter of Indigenous Year 5 students in very remote areas are at or above national minimum reading standards, compared to 91% for non-Indigenous students according to the 2016 NAPLAN, (v) Indigenous 15-year-olds are, on average, about two-and-a-third years behind non-Indigenous 15-year-olds in reading literacy and mathematical literacy according to the 2017 Closing the Gap report, (vi) the Closing the Gap report states that having literacy and numeracy skills opens doors in life and is an essential precursor to success in school, university and employment, (vii) the target of halving the gap for Indigenous children in reading, writing and numeracy within a decade (by 2018) is not on track, according to the Closing the Gap report, (viii) the Indigenous Literacy Foundation (ILF) reports that, in most of the remote communities in which it works, there are fewer than five books in family homes, (ix) the ILF programs have shown that raising literacy levels starts at a community level with book supply, and that giving children under five the right books in their own language develops early literacy skills; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) accelerate measures which will help facilitate reaching the literacy and numeracy target for Indigenous students by 2018, and (ii) do more to help close the Indigenous literacy gap overall by supporting and complementing initiatives such as the ILF which supplies books to remote Indigenous communities and who also help those communities to tell their own stories in their own language. 15:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government is committed to closing the gap and ensuring all Indigenous Australians have access to a high-quality education. As part of our record schools funding, we're providing an estimated loading of $4.3 billion for Indigenous students. Through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy we're investing more than $250 million in over 1,000 Indigenous education projects. We acknowledge that states and territories are not doing enough to support Indigenous children to attend school, which is why we're delivering our Remote School Attendance Strategy. We will continue to support Indigenous education, including literacy, as a priority, while noting that school education is actually provided by state and territory governments. Question agreed to. BILLS 6533 BILLS Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017 6533

Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017

First Reading 6533 15:43 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care Act 1997, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator HINCH 2O4 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 6533 15:44 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator HINCH 2O4 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— AGED CARE AMENDMENT (RATIO OF SKILLED STAFF TO CARE RECIPIENTS) BILL 2017 Elderly Australians have contributed valiantly to society, and throughout their lives have helped make Australia the great country it is. They have worked, volunteered, paid taxes and raised families. Some have been to war, and many live with the scars. Unfortunately, many of these Australians who have given so much to society are highly vulnerable, and are not currently guaranteed the standard of care they deserve within our aged care facilities. The Aged Care Act 1997 fails to prescribe a minimum staffing standard for Australian Government funded aged care residential facilities, and does not specify what constitutes 'appropriately skilled and qualified staff' for the purpose of providing care. New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria prescribe staffing requirements for some residential aged care facilities, but all elderly Australians deserve the best level of care when they can no longer live independently, and instead rely on others for their health, protection and wellbeing. It's hardly surprising that international research suggests that higher Registered Nurse staffing levels, higher total staffing levels and a high skills mix (ratio of Registered Nurses to other nursing staff) are associated with better quality care. And that is what this amendment is seeking to do; to enhance the level of care provided by aged care facilities nation-wide. The majority of aged care staff in Australia are personal care attendants (PCAs) or community care workers (CCWs), with a declining share of registered nurses (RNs) over the last decade or more. In 2016 the average total care hours worked per resident per day were 2.9 hours. This Bill introduces the concept of a mandated ratio of skilled staff to care recipients in Australia's aged care residential facilities. The task of calculating a safe and specific ratio (including providing for variables such as day and night shifts, higher and lower care residents, and for metropolitan, rural and regional areas) should be undertaken by the Department of Health in consultation with the aged care sector, and included in the Quality of Care Principles. The passage of this Bill would be an important step in moving towards an aged care system that is more focussed on the protection of the elderly than on profit margins of aged care facilities. Senator HINCH 2O4 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 6534 MOTIONS Monument to Captain James Cook 6534 15:44 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the plaque on the statue of Captain James Cook in Hyde Park, Sydney, states that Cook 'discovered this territory – 1770', and (ii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples had lived in Australia for at least 65,000 years before the arrival of Captain Cook; and (b) supports discussions with Aboriginal communities to seek their advice regarding whether the monument should be corrected to better reflect Captain Cook's role in Australia's history. 15:44 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government acknowledges the history and contribution of Indigenous Australians to our nation. Monuments like the statue of Captain James Cook are also part of our history, and we should respect and preserve them. The coalition government is proud of our nation's rich history. We will not support motions that attempt to rewrite this history. We won't change the flag, nor will we shift Australia Day and nor will we be tearing down statues. 15:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING I would like to indicate that Labor will support this motion today; however, we would like to note that we do have concerns with the prescriptive language that is contained in part (b) of this motion as it stands. We would like to put on the record that Labor value truth-telling in the reconciliation process, but we also acknowledge that words alone will not close the gap, end Indigenous disadvantage or bring about a more prosperous future for Indigenous Australians. The best use of our time and energy is focusing on the future and on a better deal for jobs, housing, health and justice for the First Australians, not on statues. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to. Question agreed to. Sugar Industry 6535 15:46 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I, and also on behalf of Senator Gichuhi and Senator Lambie, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) it was the sole recommendation of a 2015 inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, chaired by Senator Sterle, Australian Labor Party Senator for Western Australia, that a mandatory sugar industry Code of Conduct be developed and implemented, (ii) in view of the perishable nature of cut cane, the Sugar Industry Code of Conduct was put in place in April 2017 to prevent possible abuse by mill owners of any monopoly power they have in supply contract negotiations with growers and their collectives, and provides a mechanism for arbitration should there be a deadlock, and (iii) the sugar industry operates without price supports or subsidies, and grower incomes are directly linked to export sales, meaning the industry requires the stability and confidence that the code provides; and (b) supports the Sugar Industry Code of Conduct in order to provide certainty to Australia's cane growers. 15:46 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I want to congratulate One Nation for their support for the code of conduct, joining those of us who for over two years battled through an inquiry, led, might I say, by the Labor Party, with the conclusions being supported by the Greens, Labor and us. This was unanimously declared to be what was in the interests of the great sugar industry of my home state of Queensland. I thank One Nation for their efforts. I thank Labor for all the efforts they made to get us to the point where we were able to bring in this code of conduct to re-regulate and reset the sugar industry in the same way that it has been successfully conducted for over 100 years. I look forward today to support from Labor and the Greens for this motion, and again when the disallowance motion is presented in this place at a later time. 15:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I see leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RICE 155410 The Greens will not be supporting this motion. We have been and are continuing to be in discussions with growers, millers, the government, Labor, and other stakeholders, and we've not concluded our deliberations. What is apparent, however, is that the drafting, consultation, implementation and now disallowance of the sugar industry code of conduct has been absolutely mired in base party politics, and the last thing this parliament needs is further prodding from Senator Hanson to compromise our ability to properly consider this matter. Therefore, although we oppose this motion today, this is not in any way an indication that the Greens will be supporting or opposing the disallowance motion being moved by Senator Leyonhjelm next week, which we will have more to say on in due course. 15:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Hanson's motion is factually incorrect. The Senate committee recommended that a sugar code be developed with appropriate stakeholder consultations, and this did not occur. The exact wording of the committee recommendation is: The committee recommends the development and implementation of a mandatory sugar industry Code of Conduct, acknowledging that, provided appropriate stakeholder consultation is undertaken, the work of the Sugar Marketing Code of Conduct Taskforce may provide a foundation upon which a Code of Conduct may be established. There can be no doubt that the current code was a political fix and was imposed without proper thought or consultation or any assessment of the potential adverse effect on investment or jobs. Labor believes there is a case for a properly and responsibly developed code of conduct that addresses any market power imbalance between growers and millers. The current code is one that intervenes in commercial contracts and risks driving investment away, which will be bad news for millers and growers alike. 15:49 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON BK6 The code of conduct was necessary for the farmers to have surety of the sale of their sugar. The whole fact is that it was the Labor Party that allowed a multinational to own the mills and control the sugar production after five years. They want to control the marketing, which was destroying the sugarcane growers, who could not send their product anywhere else, because, once it's cut, it has to be delivered within 12 hours. They were holding the sugarcane growers to ransom. If they really are interested in furthering this nation through agriculture then get behind the sugarcane farmers, get behind the dairy farmers, get behind the farmers that are doing it tough out there, because multinationals are coming in, buying up this land, buying the products and selling them back to their own countries from paddock to plate. I think it's disgusting that neither party, whether it be Labor, the Greens or anyone else— (Time expired) 15:50 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 I consider it totally inappropriate that the Senate is in fact considering this motion when the disallowance matter is still to be considered, but since everybody else has made their case clear, let me point out that this motion is seeking to give credibility to a code of conduct which allows sugarcane growers to keep control of products which they've sold and no longer own. The ownership transfers to the mills at the rail siding. The canegrowers have been seeking government sanction for reaching down into the marketplace and saying, 'This is how millers should deal with our product.' It is totally inappropriate. I also think it's totally inappropriate that we consider this in this context. The time for debating it is when the disallowance motion is brought before the Senate. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Parry)

33 AYES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR Xenophon, N 30 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:58 The PRESIDENT e5v Senators, just before I call upon the next motion to be put, could I remind senators that, in relation to dealing with formal motions, report No. 2 of 2011 of the Procedure Committee indicated the very nature of what we've just seen today and a little bit yesterday—and certainly over past periods of time when we have been dealing with discovery of formal business—that is, leave can be sought to make an explanation, to make a statement, but during the discovery of formal motions leave shouldn't be sought to debate the motion. I didn't pull up any senators in debating the motion in the previous segment. But I advise senators of that, and some senators are new and don't realise that is the case. The purpose of this section of the program is for senators to put motions and for the Senate to accept that they will be put without debate, and that is why we ask whether they can be taken as formal. There is a provision in a different portion of the program for motions to be debated. So I just remind senators, when they do seek leave to make a statement, to be conscious not to debate the issue and to keep those comments very brief. Without wishing to single out anyone, the exemplar at the moment is Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath briefly states the government's position and, in doing that, he alleviates the necessity for the Senate necessarily to divide. Senator Gallagher has entered into the same spirit by indicating the opposition's position without debating the issue. Occasionally, the major parties do debate, but I just remind all senators: when you seek leave, consider the purpose that you're seeking leave for. Coal-Fired Power 6538 16:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I, and also on behalf of Senator Macdonald, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) Climate Action Plan, released in April 2016, states that 'Labor will introduce a framework to kick start the closure' of coal-fired power stations, (ii) the ALP co-sponsored a Senate motion in October 2016 'to encourage the retirement of coal-fired power stations', (iii) the Federal Opposition Leader told media in October 2016 that 'coal has a future in Australia', (iv) the ALP supported a Senate motion in March 2017 stating that Government 'has no choice but to walk away from funding coal-fired power stations', (v) the ALP supported a Senate motion in March 2017 stating that 'thermal coal is in structural decline and has no long term future in Australia', (vi) the ALP supported a Senate motion in June 2017 congratulating the Federal Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and the Queensland Premier for 'their leadership in bringing the Adani Carmichael Mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin another step closer to being a reality', and (vii) the ALP supported a Senate motion in August 2017 stating that Government 'should not force the early retirement of coal-fired power stations'; and (b) calls on the Federal Australian Labor Party to come clean with a coherent policy position regarding the future role of coal and coal-fired power stations in the national energy mix. The PRESIDENT e5v You're not going to let me down, are you, Senator McGrath? 16:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland No. I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 There is no doubt as to where the Liberal-National coalition government stands on the future of coal and coal-fired power. This government does not support forced early retirement of coal-fired power stations. The government recognises the importance of maintaining an affordable and reliable baseload energy supply and the job security of those employed in the coal power industry. The government considers coal— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Point of order, Senator Di Natale. Senator Di Natale 53369 I believe Senator McGrath has just defied your previous ruling. The PRESIDENT e5v He is not debating the motion. I was very clear. He is putting the government's position. That's what he's doing. It's a statement. Senator Di Natale 53369 Perhaps for the benefit of this side of the chamber, can you explain the difference between putting forward a position of a particular party and debating? I'm not sure I understand the difference. The PRESIDENT e5v Well, it is a difficult area, Senator Di Natale. But he's not physically debating or arguing a contrary position. He is putting the government's position, and the opposition have been doing the same. There are times when elements of debate can creep into that, but I'm asking senators to be very conscious, when they make statements, not to purely debate the issue. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government considers coal to be an essential part of Australia's energy mix for the long-term future, including the consideration of high-efficiency, low-emissions coal technology. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator O'Sullivan be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The President—Senator Parry)

40 AYES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Di Natale, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Siewert, R Sinodinos, A Smith, D Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR Xenophon, N 22 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hinch, D Ketter, CR Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Singh, LM Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 6540 COMMITTEES Procedure Committee 6540 Reference 6540 16:05 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 447 standing in my name for today, relating to a code of conduct for senators. Leave granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 I move the motion as amended: That: (1) That the Senate acknowledges the proposal below for a code of conduct: Parliamentary Code for Respecting Cultural Diversity PREAMBLE The House of Representatives and the Senate have reached agreement on a Code of Conduct which is to apply to all members of Parliament. Members of Parliament recognise that they are in a unique position of responsibility in influencing the nature of civic conduct in Australia. Members of Parliament recognise that their words and actions in the Senate and the House of Representatives influence issues relating to multicultural affairs, migration and citizenship, and can assist in guiding respectful public debate. Members of Parliament acknowledge that parliamentary privilege protects the right of members to participate freely in debate in the Parliament without fear of prosecution. Members of Parliament recognise the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner and a failure to do so may have serious implications for individuals and groups of the Australian community and may diminish the social cohesion that is essential to our national character. THE CODE 1. Uphold the honour of public office (a) Members of Parliament will take all reasonable steps to represent public office in a manner that is consistent with the values of respect and inclusion. (b) This includes behaviour and language during parliamentary proceedings. 2. First Peoples of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (a) Members of Parliament recognise the value and contribution of the First Peoples of Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. (b) Members of Parliament recognise that with the exception of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Australia is a nation of migrants. 3. Respect Australians ' diversity (a) Members of Parliament recognise that Australia has been enriched by the diversity of colour, ethnic origin, culture and religious belief that exists within our nation. (b) Members of Parliament recognise that principles including respect for religious and cultural diversity, tolerance, and justice should be upheld in parliamentary debate in a respectful manner. 4. Reject discriminatory or exclusionary statements (a) Members of Parliament will not knowingly humiliate or degrade an individual or community based on their colour, national or ethnic origin, culture or religious belief. (b) This includes acts which are intended to incite hatred or create fear of a community. (2) That this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for consideration and report by Wednesday 15 November 2017. Question agreed to. Reference 6541 Reference 6541 16:06 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 448 standing in my name for today, relating to a change to standing orders. Leave granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 I move the motion as amended: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) senators need to exercise their valuable right to freedom of speech in a responsible manner to ensure balanced discussion; and (b) the actions of senators may have serious implications for individuals and groups within the Australian community and may diminish the social cohesion that is essential to our national character. (2) That the Senate notes the following proposal to amend standing order 193 and for this amendment to operate as a temporary order from the first sitting day in October 2017, until the second sitting day of 2018: at the end of standing order 193, add: (4) Adverse reflections on an individual or community on the basis of colour, national or ethnic origin, culture or religious belief are highly disorderly. (5) A senator shall contribute to debate in a manner which upholds the honour of public office and the Parliament. (3) That this proposal be referred to the Procedure Committee for consideration and report by Wednesday, 15 November 2017. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6542 MOTIONS Natural Disasters 6542 16:07 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes with concern two recent natural disasters – monsoon rains which have flooded Bangladesh, India and Nepal, and Tropical Storm Harvey in the Unites States of America (USA); (b) is further concerned that 43 million people have been affected by the flooding in South Asia, particularly those in Bangladesh, where more than two-thirds of the country is underwater, and that the costs of Tropical Storm Harvey, the most extreme rain event in USA history, could add up to US$180 billion; (c) expresses sympathy for the loved ones of the more than 1200 killed in South Asia and the more than 60 killed in Houston; (d) notes that extreme weather events, such as the South Asian monsoonal flooding and Tropical Storm Harvey, will become worse as the climate changes; and (e) welcomes the announcement that the Australian Government will provide $2 million to the international relief effort in Nepal, but urges the Government to provide further humanitarian assistance to other countries affected in the region. 16:07 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Australian government offers its condolences to all those families affected by these crises. Australia is closely monitoring the humanitarian situation in Bangladesh and Myanmar and the impact of natural disasters across the world, including Tropical Storm Harvey in the United States and the effects of monsoonal flooding in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. In response to a request for international assistance from the government of Nepal, Australia's $2 million contribution to the relief effort will assist 5,900 children under the age of five and 1,600 pregnant and nursing mothers. In addition, Australia is providing essential hygiene supplies and health services to 6,600 women and girls. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 6542 DOCUMENTS Cashless Debit Card 6542 Order for the Production of Documents 6542 16:08 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by 3.30 pm on 7 September 2017, the evaluation of the Cashless Welfare Card commissioned by the Department of Social Services and authored by Mr J Rob Bray and Professor Matthew Gray, and all associated documents. 16:08 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 An evaluation of the cashless welfare card, commissioned by the Department of Social Services and authored by Mr J Rob Bray and Professor Matthew Gray, does not exist. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 6543 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 16:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, eight proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher. Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The obsession of the Turnbull Government with the economic policies of Eastern Europe prior to 1989 rather than the economic priorities of Australian families in 2017. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:11 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland What a topic to debate today, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm! I want to touch on a few key economic issues before diving into the politics of this matter. Firstly, let's get some facts on the table. Most noticeably, we're seeing that wages growth is stagnant under this government; we haven't seen a rise in wages for some time. Let's just set the context for this debate. We know that the Treasurer has indicated that low wage growth is probably the economy's greatest threat. Today we see the national June accounts showing annual growth of 1.8 per cent, which is a long way short of our nation's potential, notwithstanding the fact that we've experienced a record period of economic growth in this country—but I'll come back to that point. We've got economic growth below two per cent, and it's been below two per cent for the last three or four quarters. This is now the worst run of economic growth performance since the GFC. There is no question that we are lagging behind. These accounts put Australia's annual growth performance below that of Canada, the US and New Zealand in the OECD. It's ironic that we have the Turnbull government trying to whip up fear of socialism whilst it relies on public spending to prop up the June quarter wage figures. Yes, that's right: it wasn't actually the private sector which generated the growth in the economy. It was, in fact, total government investment in that period—driven largely by the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Weatherill government in South Australia, and government consumption—that is the explanation for the fact that we had any growth at all in the economy. So it is somewhat ironic that it is public sector growth that this government is holding up as part of its economic performance. Average wages fell by 0.1 per cent in the June quarter, which is another reminder of the squeeze being felt by low- and middle-income earners, and living standards have slipped significantly. Despite these concerns, the Turnbull government, with its policy to cut penalty rates, presides over a scenario where the wages of low-income employees are being cut without any compensation and continues to fail to deal adequately with the surge in power prices. The ABS notes that, for the last five quarters, households have been spending more than their incomes, and this is in line with the RBA governor's concerns around household debt and the risks that this poses to future economic growth. We have the extraordinary situation where household debt is around 180 per cent, I think—it was when I last looked at it—of GDP. That is an extraordinary position. So, I would go so far as to say that it's the Turnbull government that is posing the biggest risk to future economic growth. Indeed, in March of this year an analysis from the Australia Institute showed that 46.2 per cent of the share in the GDP in the March quarter was the lowest recorded since the ABS started collecting data in 1959. So we're talking about the share of the economy there. It's even lower than when economic policies of Eastern Europe were at their most popular. When it comes to company tax, one of the classic arguments put forward in 1980s economic thinking was that tax cuts were self-fulfilling, that if the government got out of the road of corporations and lowered the tax rate we'd have higher growth and wage rises and these benefits would pay for themselves. Last year we had a Prime Minister and a government clutching at straws to have a credible jobs and growth campaign. We all remember how many times that slogan was repeated, but—unusually—we don't hear much of it these days. And what did we see as the centrepiece of that economic policy? A company tax cut, straight out of 1980s economic thinking. It was put forward as a solution to all our economic woes. I think this goes to the heart of the issue: we have a government that is looking at the problems that beset the Australian economy in 2017 and beyond through the lens of what happened in the 1980s and before that. Now, let's be clear about company tax cuts. They are not always a bad thing. We remember the good work of former Prime Minister Paul Keating in reforming our economy and lowering the company tax rate. But there is a difference. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating paid for all of his tax cuts; the Turnbull government didn't, blowing a $65 billion hole in the budget—so much for responsible budget management from the other side of the chamber. As I repeatedly mentioned—Stephen Koukoulas makes this point—when you're looking at which side of the chamber actually has the record of being the low-taxing government, it's actually Labor governments that quite empirically can be shown to be in that category. Budgets are about priorities. There might be times when a company tax cut is the best use of taxpayer money, but we also hear from the RBA and the IMF that infrastructure spending is likely to be much more productive. Education is also a worthwhile investment. On this side of the chamber we take a modern, progressive approach to economic thinking. We see on the other side a government that is stuck in the 1980s, trying to re-prosecute old battles. I just want to talk about the presence in Australia recently of former shadow chancellor in the UK, Ed Balls. I thank my colleague and former Treasurer Wayne Swan, the Chifley Research Centre and the Australia Institute for arranging his tour of Australia. Ed spoke about how current economic challenges have shown that policy thinking needs to move on from the 1980s. He made a couple of points in his Press Club speech that are worth thinking about: Assumption one was that the main source of instability in our economies came from governments making mistakes – too much inflation, too much deficit spending – and that if you had a sound approach to monetary policy and got your fiscal policy right that was the best way to ensure stability in the economy. When we look back to the GFC we see that the lack of strong regulation and oversight of the financial system was a crucial oversight. And when we look to this government we see a government stuck in the past, refusing a royal commission into the banks, refusing to take a strong interest in macro-prudential regulations to manage runaway housing prices. The second issue Ed Balls mentioned was: … we didn’t see … that inequality wasn’t going to be, as we thought, simply about the bottom falling behind. In Britain from the early 2000s, from America from before that and maybe Australia more recently, the issue has been that people on the highest incomes have seen their incomes shoot ahead while medium earners, people in the middle, have seen their wages stagnate as well as people on the bottom. And in terms of jobs and technology we’ve seen an absolute increase in unskilled jobs, an absolute increase in high skilled jobs and an absolute fall in middle skill, middle wage employment. There are challenges in the modern economy to protect the middle class, and Labor has clear policies addressing housing affordability, education, protecting Medicare and protecting penalty rates to ensure that people have a decent shot at life. But we see from the government's approach that their thinking is stuck in the past. They are looking to undermine the social safety net, undermine the union movement on a daily basis, lower penalty rates and engage in rampant deregulation and widespread privatisation. The government needs to get out of the 1980s time warp and come into the 21st century. If the Liberal-aligned commentators and ministers stopped ragging on Labor and addressed their own party's policy shortfalls, perhaps Australia's economy wouldn't be so stagnant. I am proud to be part of a movement that has stood up for ordinary working people for more than 125 years. As the working environment continues to change, our policies will continue to change to suit the needs of working people and the needs of our families. The only people in danger of adopting 1980s policies are this failing government. They want to fight the same battles that were drawn up years ago. They are refusing to change and, in doing so, they are failing to change Australia for the better. 16:20 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria There is only one side of Australian politics that is obsessed with the economic policies of pre-1989 Eastern Europe, and that is those who are trying to introduce the policies of pre-1989 Eastern Europe. The Greens have long aspired to retrofit our dynamic, modern economy with outdated command and control economic policies. Senator Rhiannon, as we know, is a particular fan. But the most disturbing new development in Australian politics today is that the Labor Party is now copying them. Clearly inspired by the so-called success of ageing socialists like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, who want to turn the economic clock back to a centralised, interventionist past, the Labor Party is embracing reckless, dangerous, economic populism. It is not obsessive to warn the Australian people about the disastrous consequences of going down the socialist path—it is prudent. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann put it well recently when he said: Pursuing the socialist ideal of equality of outcome leads to mediocrity and stagnation. I was born in 1987. I'm 29 years old. My generation is blessed in many ways. One of those blessings is that, unlike our parents and grandparents, we've never lived under the shadow of socialism. We've lived in an era of unprecedented prosperity and growth. Many of us don't even remember the last recession in Australia, let alone the old totalitarian regimes and the devastating damage they did to humanity. But it is my generation who has the most to lose from a return to policies inspired by these socialist ideals. A common myth about socialism is that it is bad for rich people and good for poor people. It's often not the case. People who have already accumulated wealth typically retain it, even when economies take a turn to the left. Once you've built your wealth, new regulation and taxes are certainly undesirable but, short of confiscation, you'll probably be okay. It's the people who don't yet have wealth who suffer the most. It is their aspiration to build wealth for themselves and their family that is most affected by socialist policies. Overwhelmingly, the people who will lose out from a shift to the left are the young. We don't yet own houses. We might still have a HECS debt to pay back. Our super balances are pretty meagre. We don't have extensive shareholdings. I should be clear: I am not talking about myself here—I'm a highly paid politician; no-one needs to lose too much sleep over me—but I do genuinely worry about the prospects for my generation if the Labor Party continues down the path it is on. History teaches us where that path leads. Higher taxes stifle aspiration, and that's exactly what Bill Shorten has in store for Australia. We know that, if elected Prime Minister, he has a plan to increase taxes by more than $150 billion—$65 billion in higher taxes on all businesses, including small business; $15 billion in a further hit to small business by going after trusts; $32 billion in higher taxes on housing by scrapping negative gearing; $13 billion in higher taxes on savings and investment by increasing the capital gains tax; $22 billion in higher income taxes to discourage hard work and risk-taking; and $20 billion in secret further changes to raise more money from superannuation. No-one will be harder hit by these policies than young, aspirational Australians. Higher taxes on business will make it harder for my generation to get and keep a job. Higher taxes on housing will make it less widely available and less affordable, not more. Higher taxes on savings will make it harder for young people to put money aside for their future. Higher taxes on income will dampen the entrepreneurial spirit of young people and discourage them from working harder and taking risks. Higher taxes on superannuation will only make it more difficult to save for a secure retirement. These plans are a recipe for economic stagnation and decay. Young people who are just starting out financially will bear the brunt of that burden. If these taxes are put in place, they will have fewer opportunities to get ahead and succeed. Sadly, as we know, higher taxes are not the only thing Bill Shorten has in store for young Australians. He also wants to saddle them with even more debt. Our debt problem is bad enough already. Despite the best efforts of this government—not at all helped by the Labor Party in this chamber—gross government debt now exceeds $500 billion. That's more than $21,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. And we know that if this generation doesn't fix that problem now, it is future generations who will have to shoulder that load. Incredibly, Bill Shorten wants to make this serious problem even worse. His plan for higher taxes is outweighed by his plans for higher spending. That means more debt—more debt that young Australians will ultimately have to pay back. Labor senators in these debates like to talk about their supposed concern about inequality and fairness, but here's nothing less equal or fair than saddling future generations with our debt. Yet that is their plan. The Labor Party might not like it, but there's no doubt these policies are inspired by socialist thinking. If that's what motivates them, they should be honest about it. If it isn't, then it's time they abandoned these policies and updated their constitution, which, in 2017, is still, remarkably, promising. It says: … the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange … and proudly calls the ALP a 'democratic socialist party'. The contrast with this government could not be clearer. We are motivated by free enterprise and economic freedom. We believe in individual liberty and reward for effort. We don't want to increase taxes; we want to cut them. We don't want to increase debt; we want to reduce it. We want to do these things because we know that it will provide the best opportunities for Australians to get ahead and succeed. We want young people to be ambitious for their future and we want the government to get out of the way so that they can seize it. The strong economic results we have seen today are the dividends of our responsible approach to economic policy. On this path, Australia has a bright future. The socialist panacea risks all this. It poses a serious risk to our future, and it is young people who have the most to lose. That's why we will never stop highlighting the dangerous and irresponsible economic policies that the Labor Party offers. We'll stop talking about pre-1989 Eastern European policies on the day that you stop advocating them. 16:27 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania When you walk down the street—pick any busy street around this lovely country—and talk to people, they don't see the world in terms of left and right. They don't talk about left and right and socialism and capitalism. I'll tell you what they are interested in: new ideas and solutions to problems that they face in their everyday lives. The best way I have heard my party, the Greens, described was by my former leader and my predecessor in this place Bob Brown. Bob said, 'Whenever I get asked this question I say: the Greens aren't to the left; the Greens aren't to the right—the Greens are out in front. The Greens are leading this country on progressive economic policies. Let me give you a couple of examples about the Labor Party, who are, of course, being labelled as the new socialists by their right-wing opponents across the chamber, the Liberal and National parties. Guess who led on the banks royal commission? The Australian Greens. Who led on legislating for penalty rates? The Australian Greens. Who led on removing negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? The Australian Greens. Who led on taxing trusts and companies? The Australian Greens. Who led on an infrastructure bank? The Australian Greens. I'm proud to say that if we have helped to shift the Labor Party to adopt some good policies then we are very happy about that. It's not just the Labor Party that has listened to the Greens. Have a look at the Liberal Party. It is also a very impressive list. Senator Duniam, that's more impressive, because you've adopted some of our policies and actually legislated them in this place into reality. Let's have a look at them: a bank levy—something that we have been fighting for for 10 years since the GFC, and lo and behold, we get a bank levy in this budget; an effects test—something Christine Milne and I have campaigned on for a very long time—which will, hopefully, very soon pass fully into legislation; and a small business package, including tax cuts for small business, instant asset write-offs and a Small Business Ombudsman—a Greens' policy, again, adopted by the Liberal Party. What about housing affordability and aggregate bonds? It is another idea that we've run with that the Liberal-National Party put in the last budget. Good debt and bad debt—distinguishing our national accounts—is also a Greens economic policy. A beneficial ownership register to help tackle tax avoidance issues and account portability for bank accounts are also Greens policies. We are proud to be out in front, ignoring this immature left and right debate, looking at the solutions that people in this country want to their problems and coming up with new ideas. I would say to Senator Paterson—who unfortunately fled the chamber as soon as I got up to speak; and may that be noted by Hansard—I think you are asking the wrong questions. The question he should be asking is: 'Why are Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn so politically popular?' That's not the question that the senators on this side of the chamber are asking. They are popular because ordinary people out there who are struggling feel very strongly that the system has let them down and they're looking for alternatives. That's where the answer to this dilemma lies. The policies of the right—globalisation and free markets—haven't delivered for people on the ground. We need markets, but markets fail and that's why we need governments. Isn't it interesting that the Labor Party support removing perverse legislation—and we're glad they do—like negative gearing concessions and capital gains concessions, but the Liberal Party, supposedly, the free market party, want to keep them in place? They're happy to distort markets when it suits their stakeholders who donate to them, like the Property Council. The Labor Party opposed the bank levy. As soon as the bank levy was brought in in the last budget—a Greens policy—the Labor Party were out there mercilessly campaigning against the bank levy. Who would have thought that a tax on the big wealthy banks that helps pay for schools and hospitals would have been opposed by the Labor Party? It just goes to show that, if you want to have an honest debate in here about socialism and capitalism, it's bloody hard to tell where the duopoly of politics lie on this issue. I can't tell, nor can the Australian people. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Whish-Wilson, I ask you to withdraw that unparliamentary reference. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Excuse me? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 You were very unparliamentary. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Could I ask that you reflect on that and have a look at the Hansard? I was talking about policies. I wasn't saying anything about them in particular as individuals or parties. I said, 'It's bloody hard to tell'. It is a very colloquial Australian term. Senator McGrath 217241 You need to put a dollar in the swear jar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senators, thank you. Senator Whish-Wilson, I will reflect on that, but it is still my belief that it was unparliamentary. 16:33 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales I can't say for certain whether or not it was unparliamentary. What I can say is that Senator Whish-Wilson's speech was certainly confusing. It was hard to work out exactly what Senator Whish-Wilson was going on about. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator DASTYARI 225099 No, no, it was lovely. He talked a bit about Bob Brown; he talked a bit about himself; and he talked a bit about the Greens. He didn't really talk about socialism as much as I think we all expected him to; but, then again, Senator Rhiannon wasn't here, so I guess he didn't need to impress her. An honourable senator: She is watching. Senator DASTYARI 225099 Senator Rhiannon is always watching. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I thought you were her friend, Sam. Senator DASTYARI 225099 I am. It's the Labor Party. We're all friends. In our business, they're referred to as 'mates'. We're all a little bit frightened about the 1980s. I note that people here, certainly those on the other side, are quite scared by the 1980s. Let's be clear: this government has a chant that fills the hallways—that is, 'The reds are coming.' One should be afraid because the reds are coming. Unlike a lot of other people, I have to be honest, I am actually a fan of the 1980s. I think a lot of Australians are. Who could forget the offerings of ABC afternoon TV with James Valentine? But the obsession of the Turnbull government with eastern Europe's economic policies up to 1989 extends to so many policy areas. Start with energy. The coalition government, with their love of MTV, Madonna and James Valentine on the ABC show, also love towering smokestacks and coal-fired power plants. This government is so obsessed with burning coal that, no matter how much we on this side extend the offer to compromise and shift policy, they will not be changed. This fascination with coal flies in the face of reports received from the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, this week. These AEMO reports bear four years of utter failure on the part of Mr Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull on energy policy. Over the course of the last four years since the election of the Abbott government, wholesale power prices have doubled—doubled—leading to skyrocketing power prices for Australian households and for Australian business. The AEMO reports are one more rejection, hopefully the final rejection, of Prime Minister Turnbull's fantasy that the solution to the country's deep energy crisis is to build new coal-fired power stations, with a taxpayer subsidy if need be. We call on the government to get out of 1989, to get past the politics of energy policy—most of the politics, of course, being in the coalition party room itself. It's time to start to implement the key recommendation of the Finkel report: a clean energy target. When it comes to immigration, the irony here is that you have a government that keeps trying to call out those opposite to them, those in the Labor Party, on having pre-1980s socialist views, when the fascination of the Turnbull government is with the power of the secret police in eastern Europe in the 1980s—yes, I'm referring to the Stasi, who were beyond reproach and who operated without review. On today's Notice Paperwas agovernment bill that would be better suited to the 1980s and the Stasi headquarters than to modern multicultural Australia. It purports to provide the minister for immigration with the ability to withdraw citizenship without a merits review. Avoiding a merits review on personal decisions made in 'the public interest' brings this government in line with the double-speak of the great democratic republics of eastern Europe in the 1980s. The bill would grant the minister the power to revoke citizenship without review, relying on the minister's suspicion of belief to be sufficient. This is further power to a minister who, in a previous portfolio, as revealed in the past day, was voted the worst health minister ever. In its explanatory memorandum, the government has argued: As an elected Member of Parliament, the Minister represents the Australian community and has a particular insight into Australian community standards and values and what is in Australia’s public interest. In the enlightened times we live in, in 2017, we can surely all agree that discretionary powers which have a direct and immediate effect on personal rights and interests should, in principle, be subject to merits review—a decision made in the public interest which the minister alone decides is simply not good enough. A minister who would criticise lawyers representing asylum seekers and who at times holds in contempt the rule of law would be well suited to eastern Europe in 1989, not to Australia in 2017. The government attack the Labor Party, their political opponents, for the preconceived idea that Mr Bill Shorten is some kind of crazy socialist. Firstly, they need to decide which set of socialists they think we are. Are we the eastern European variety? Are we the Latin American variety? Senator McGrath 217241 You're all the same! Senator DASTYARI 225099 Well, it keeps changing! But what it represents is this: this is a desperate government. This is a government with nothing left. This is a government whose internal wranglings, fights and disputes have now so dominated their ability to make any kind of decision—any kind of decision—that all they have left is cheap stunts and attacks. This is a government whose strategy—look, you may as well lay it bare—is this: 'We have to go and try and discredit our opponents as much as possible because our current policy agenda is no longer electable.' And it becomes more and more desperate. It becomes more and more unhinged. What you have is a government made up of two parties who are now just chasing the far right of Australian politics. What you have now is a National Party that is chasing One Nation. You know, Senator Hanson came into this chamber today and congratulated the National Party on following her policy lead. I'm not one who would normally agree with Senator Hanson in this chamber, but I think that, on that point, she is correct. The hypocrisy—that the same party, the National Party, that would come into this chamber and argue against same-sex marriage on the basis of its infringement on religious liberties would come and use their conference to argue for a banning of the burqa! The hypocrisy of that! Let's be clear: I'm not a fan of the burqa; that's the type of Islam that I've always rejected; I'm not a fan of that. But I believe in religious liberty. I believe in freedom. And I believe that freedom sometimes means freedom for things that one doesn't necessarily like. To argue against same-sex marriage on the basis of religious liberty and then, at the same time, turn around and argue against garments or dress that you don't particularly like shows a level of hypocrisy that is preposterous. But I digress. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Dastyari, I think that is correct; you have digressed! Senator DASTYARI 225099 And I acknowledge that and appreciate the indulgence of the chair. The idea that somehow there is some kind of socialist plot being led by the Labor Party—and political opponents—which we've heard Senator Cormann and others in this government try and express in the past couple of weeks, just shows how desperate, how unhinged and how lacking a basis in reality this government has become. Frankly, what concerns me is this. As this government descends into the rabbit hole that is its own agenda, all we're going to see is more and more of this. All we're going to see is more desperate attacks and more desperate pleas. It wasn't good enough that there was some kind of international conspiracy involving New Zealand and the Australian Labor Party; now it's some kind of giant socialist plot that has been put together! Look: there is a problem with inequality in this country. There is a problem that can be addressed, that should be addressed, that sensible policies can address, and the Labor Party will continue to put forward a series of sensible, reasonable policy proposals to the Australian public. Name-calling and making ridiculous kinds of claims is not doing anyone any benefit. 16:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland One thing Queenslanders and Australians say to me, as a servant to the people, is that Australians are tired of the political games being played by the duopoly of tired old parties. What is worse is that Australians no longer trust both these parties. 'Trust' is a key word—crucial to many Australians, and most certainly to the people of Queensland. The public no longer trusts the two tired old parties to be anything different. They deliver the same window-dressing, year in year out, election after election. Both parties dwell in eastern bloc socialism, their policies more reminiscent of Nicolae Ceausescu's than of any other government of the modern era—repressive; Stalinist; centrally planned; yet ultimately leading to poverty and desperation in a once proud and vibrant country. Both parties have sold out the battlers, everyday Australians, for quick, cheap, tacky and destructive politics. When Ceausescu was finally executed, they said one of the season's jokes was that Dante had been wrong and that hell was not hot at all—it was, in fact, as cold as a Romanian apartment in winter. This could be as easily said about Adelaide this winter, thanks to the Labor-Greens-Xenophon alliance and a gutlessly silent Liberal Party. The greatest rejoicing in Romania after the revolution was simply at being able to say 'Christmas' again—so penetrating was communism that simple words like family and Christmas had been banned. Imagine that. If only John Curtin and Ben Chifley knew what today's Labor were doing to their memory, their inheritance. With climate policies based on a blatant lie, driving up electricity prices and plunging many into living without electricity, into a cold as bitter as Dante's hell was hot, how could Labor waltz in here, allied with GetUp!, and spew forth that they are the party of the workers?. That living hell is cold; it is jobless, powerless, prospectless and futureless. And everyone knows it is enforced on us by a cold modern Labor, aided and abetted by the Liberals in this and the other place. Imagine a situation where Curtin looked on the Labor Party of today to see them cuddling with the country's worst enemies, cuddling up with climate zealots, religious zealots, repressers of our freedom and destroyers of the working class. How ashamed that man would be. He would die of that tragic heart attack all over again. That great man in office, that honourable Prime Minister, died after fighting day and night to protect us Aussies from the worst of our enemies. How dare today's Labor claim his inheritance. Would Curtin be proud of the cost-of-living pressures Labor now inflicts on everyday Aussies or of the increases on everything but the wages that union thugs, like the CFMEU and the AWU, barter away on working conditions and penalty rates, week in and week out? Betrayal, hurt and pestilence are all that today's Labor has brought to the national discourse, and I can say with certainty that revolution is brewing. The revenge, not in bullets, will be delivered at the ballot box. Senator Hanson and I hear the murmurs and disquiet in every corner of Queensland when we travel through our beautiful state. Aussies are being crushed by repressive costs of living and, in particular, a communist level of taxation. The proposed solution to burdensome taxes and broad tax reform is for the repressive Stalinists opposite to just propose more tax, more pain, more destitution and squeeze more blood from a famished populous. Here is a message to Labor from those to whom we listen—the public. Remember them? Your number is up. The death of the movement you self-cannibalised will be dealt with swiftly, and not before time. For Labor to waltz into this place with an MPI like this is shameful. Although, on reflection, it's a good opportunity for us to turn our minds to how Labor's policies are so eagerly taken up by the Liberals, how there is little difference, in many areas, between how both parties act like each other so eagerly, so afraid to be real. It's timely to be reminded how those opposite have destroyed the working class and now target the most vulnerable while pretending to care for the less fortunate. No-one trusts today's Labor. The ALP have morphed into a monster. They act like a mad king that could only be dreamt of by GRR Martin. And you should treat mad kings the way mad kings are always dealt with: regicide or regency. Untrustworthy, incompetent, shallow. Get out of the way, today's Labor, and let the grown-ups govern. Australians don't trust you anymore. 16:48 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory It's great to be able to speak on this matter of public importance today. When we read the words of this MPI we see the sensitivity of the Labor Party revealed, for all to see, in relation to their policies being scrutinised, most recently by the very capable and very impressive finance minister, Mathias Cormann, who has called out the Labor Party's return to its socialist roots. We've all been aware, and there's been debate in recent times, that the Labor Party's had the socialist objective in its platform since its foundation. There are debates, and we sometimes hear various state divisions saying, 'Do we get rid of the socialist objective or do we keep it?' But the interesting thing is that up until recently, if we look at, say, the Hawke and Keating governments, even though it was in there, we know that Labor governments tended to ignore a lot of it. That was the difference: it was in there but it wasn't an issue, because I don't think that anyone could say that Paul Keating was a socialist. The problem for modern Labor, under Bill Shorten, is the way that they are embracing their socialist roots more and more, as reflected in their policies. The MPI says there's an obsession with the economic policies of eastern Europe. Well, I think the only reason that is being talked about is that some of the policies that are being put forward by the Labor Party today are looking pretty socialist. They are about dragging everyone down rather than enabling everyone to be lifted up, and that is what the coalition believes in. We believe in setting a framework for an economy where, if you work hard, you will have great opportunities to get ahead. If you can't look after yourself, we've got a safety net, but, for those who can, we want to give you opportunities to get ahead. If you work a bit harder than the person next to you, we think it's fair that you do a little bit better than the person next to you and that you take those opportunities. If you want to take risks, we want to support you. Sometimes that will lead to great success, as it does for many businesses. Of course, when you take risks sometimes it doesn't work out, but we encourage that risk-taking mentality and the idea that if you do invest your own money, your own time and your own effort and you do well, well, good luck to you. We want to see you succeed. The contrast with today's Labor Party's list of proposed tax increases is extraordinary. We can go through some of the list of what the Labor Party wants to do if they get into office. They want to increase taxes on small and family businesses. They want your local small and family business to pay more tax, and then, of course, they'll employ fewer people. They won't have as much money for their family and there won't be as many jobs in their community under a Shorten Labor government, if they were to be elected. On the housing and rental tax: they want to get rid of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. This is the modern Labor Party. Senator O'Neill 140651 No, that's not true. Senator SESELJA HZE Okay, they'll keep it for some new houses; there you go. They'll get rid of it for existing houses. They'll get rid of it for 93 per cent. Where do most people get their rental stock? From the 93 per cent who claim it on existing stock. The Labor Party wants renters to pay their tax. Small businesses and those who work for small businesses will suffer from the tax increases of Labor. Those in the rental market will, of course, pay more, because of their housing tax. Senator O'Neill 140651 You cut $56 billion out of it. Senator SESELJA HZE Senator O'Neil doesn't like hearing about it, but it's a housing tax. Who's that going to hit? It is going to hit renters fundamentally more than it will hit anyone else under a Shorten Labor government, if they were ever to come to office. Family trusts, of course, will cop a hit, because now Labor says that family trusts are somehow illegitimate—they are wrong somehow. There's no legitimate purpose; therefore. the Labor Party will hit them. And they're going to increase income tax. They're going to hit the aspirational people—people who are doing reasonably well. Yes, they've worked very hard. To get to $180,000 a year, yes, they work hard. They're doing okay, some of them, but I wouldn't say that they're mega-wealthy and that they are this class of people who should be brought down, as the Labor Party would like to see, but they're going to increase their tax, as well. That's going to be the income tax increase. Who knows what other taxes they've got? We do know about their electricity tax—their 50 per cent renewables target. What do you think's going to happen there? That's going to be a tax on every household and every business. That's the electricity tax that's coming back under Labor. And when they restore the ABCC, that will be an infrastructure tax. When you allow the corrupt unions to own the workplace again—to own our building sites again—not only do you support their corrupt business model, but that's an infrastructure tax. We know what it does: it pushes up the cost of roads, it pushes up the cost of schools and it pushes up the cost of hospitals. So, infrastructure that Australians need, that they expect their governments to deliver, becomes more expensive. The only way you can deliver it under Labor's policies is to borrow more money to do it, or deliver less infrastructure. You don't get as many roads, you don't get the rail, you don't get the schools and you don't get the airports, or you get substandard versions of them. This is the picture of life that Bill Shorten is offering the Australian people. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE No wonder Senator Gallagher is a little sensitive and the Labor Party are a little bit sensitive about being called out on their policies. We will stop criticising your policies and comparing them to socialists past when you have policies that aren't socialist, when you have policies that are about lifting people up. I want to devote the short time I've got left to the policies that Bill Shorten has said he has for growing the economy—it will be very short! I'm going to do it in the next 15 seconds. I'm going to hurry; I'm going to do it. He was asked, 'What are you going to do to grow the economy?' He said, 'Well, I support public transport.' There you go! That is the Labor Party's— (Time expired) 16:55 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Much like Senator Seselja, I am very much looking forward to having a say in this debate. I'm going to start by being kind. I have to say, my observation in estimates is that Senator Cormann is quite a competent performer, and I hear from Liberal Party observers of the Expenditure Review Committee that Senator Cormann certainly carries the Treasurer in that committee, if not the Prime Minister as well—you see, I'm being nice, Acting Deputy President—but the fact that his education was gained in European universities sometimes leads him into misunderstanding Australian politics. According to Liberal Party sources, when an enthusiastic— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 A point of order, Senator Seselja? Senator Seselja HZE I think it is offensive to be suggesting, as Senator Kitching just has, that because someone is educated in a foreign university and is foreign born they somehow don't have an understanding— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Thank you very much, Senator Seselja. Senator O'Neill, a point of order? Senator O'Neill 140651 That's a debating point. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I was just about to make the same point. If Senator Kitching would just like to clarify the intent of her comment, I'm sure we'd be grateful. Senator KITCHING 247512 I'm not actually suggesting that, because I'm going to come to someone else who was educated in European universities, Senator Seselja—through you, Acting Deputy President. According to Liberal Party sources, when an enthusiastic PMO suggested that he incorporate comments about socialism into a Sydney Institute speech, he agreed with alacrity. Why? Because he misunderstands Australian political philosophy. In his speech he made the mistake of importing abstract European ideological categories into Australian politics, and his speech suggested that his understanding, in politics or in our society, is lacking. I can assure him that very few Australian voters care about 'socialist revisionism', whatever that might be. So let me attempt to re-educate Senator Cormann, not in a scary, Chinese labour camp kind of way but by telling him that the ALP has no interest in abstract ideological categories. Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator Smith interjecting— Senator Dastyari interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 I'd ask senators on both sides to keep their commentary down because I can't, from here, even hear Senator Kitching. Senator KITCHING 247512 Labor is a social democratic party, a party of practical reformers, as shown by every Labor Prime Minister from Fisher to Gillard. In fact, it was Labor that carried out more successful free market reforms over the past 30 years than any coalition government. It was the ALP that floated the dollar, the ALP that scrapped the restrictive two-airlines policy of the Menzies years, the ALP that liberalised the labour market through enterprise bargaining. It was the ALP that ended the state's role in retail banking, aviation and other areas. Indeed, if I could quote someone expert on the nature of socialism—and this is my quote from another person educated in European universities—Vladimir Lenin was so disgusted by the moderate nature of the ALP that he complained in 1913 that the Australian Labor Party 'does not even call itself a socialist party'. 'Actually,' he went on to say, writing in Pravda, 'it is a liberal-bourgeois party, while the so-called Liberals in Australia are really Conservatives.' I hate to break it to the chamber, but, sadly, the ALP is not the vanguard of the revolution. I have to say there are people in the ALP who would ensure that we have responsible, moderate policy positions. I've outlined some of those above. Meanwhile, it is the Turnbull government which wants to relaunch one of the largest pieces of state enterprise in Australian history—the Snowy Mountains scheme, a scheme that was opposed then by the then opposition leader, Robert Menzies. I do love quoting Menzies to the government. While Senator Cormann is denouncing Labor as alleged socialists, his PM is embarking on a great piece of socialist construction. We've also seen Mr Tony Abbott advocating that the state should build and operate coal-fired power stations—a Stalinist idea straight out of the 1930s. What will they do next? Introduce a five-year plan? Collectivise agriculture? Senator Cormann has a lot of hide for lecturing Labor for allegedly embracing extreme political ideologies. Might I suggest he actually have a look at his own Western Australian branch. This is a party that has sent such ideologues and demagogues as Wilson Tuckey, Ross Lightfoot, Dennis Jensen and Noel Crichton-Browne to this parliament. This is the party which just last month voted that WA should economically secede from the rest of Australia. The WA branch of the Liberal Party has been soft on bigots, racists and divisive people for decades. This is also the party that virtually bankrupted the Western Australian economy, a state which earns $4 billion a year in mining royalties. Not even Chavez could do what the Western Australia Liberal Party did. But there is a serious side to that. You can't go around— (Time expired) 17:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania We have almost cleared out the gallery. It is little wonder, I have to say, when you look at the silly MPI we are debating today. It is, frankly, something that leaves little wonder to understanding why Australians seem to have lost faith in what we do in this place. Nonetheless, here I am contributing to the debate. About one year ago, in my first speech to this place, I mentioned the name Fran Mirakaj. I mentioned his name because he was someone who I heard of through the experience of meeting my in-laws, who came from a communist country after the fall of communism— Senator O'Neill 140651 I don't know why you're looking at me there, Senator Duniam! Senator DUNIAM 263418 I was just looking at everyone in the room hoping they were listening, but they were probably not. I am honest. Anyway, I mention Fran Mirakaj because it is through the stories I have been told about him and the experiences he had in his life, culminating in his final experience, which was being tortured to death by the communist regime in Albania for not denouncing his faith, that stood out to me about the importance of what is great about Australia: the democratic values that we have and share and that we should hold onto; the things that I believe, as I'll come to later, the Liberal Party stands up for and the coalition stands for in this place, as a contrast to what many have called, I think rightly, the socialist agenda that is being pushed by the opposition. Fran Mirakaj was one of the more unlucky ones. He lost his life. Others simply lost their right to vote, to own property, to choose the career they were going to pursue, to think what they wanted to think. They lost all of that. That is what happened in Albania—a communist country, underpinned by socialist values—a terrible place, if you ask anyone who has ever lived there and lived under the regime at the time. Looking at the MPI today, and drawing a link between the experiences of my wife's family, who came here to seek political refuge, and today's MPI, I wanted to go through a bit of that background. The reason my parents-in-law chose to leave Albania and come to Australia is salient to understanding what is so good about this place and why we need to uphold what is good about our democratic values and our democratic system. Before they arrived here they saw this country as a country that gave you the freedom to pursue all the choices in life that you want: to pursue the job that you wanted to; to choose the lifestyle that you wanted to live; to aim for a salary that you thought you ought to be earning; to work hard to be able to earn that salary; indeed, if you wanted to, to invest in a business venture and pursue that as a way of making a living. Anything you want to do in this country, you can do. No-one holds you back. No-one prevents you from doing it. No-one tries to tax your efforts out of existence if trying to start a business is what you want to do. Leaving Albania behind, as I say, they were told where to live and what career they were going to pursue. They were not allowed to own property. They were not allowed to run businesses. It was all state-owned property. People were not encouraged to be their best. People were not encouraged to live up to their full potential, because there was no way of controlling them. There was no way of telling them they needed the government to guide them through life and help them out every day. That's why they left Albania and came to Australia. That's why, as keen political observers, they are extremely frightened about the prospect of some of the policies that have been put forward by the Australian Labor Party, many of which have been discussed in the debate so far by those who have gone before me. Those policies relate to increasing income tax rates; abolishing negative gearing—attacking those in the middle income brackets who rely on that to put away for their retirement to make their life a little bit more comfortable and provide for their children into the future as well; and reversing the enterprise tax plan, making it impossible for business to thrive and to create employment in our regional communities. Then there are trusts—these nasty, awful things called trusts—which, if you believe the Labor Party, are things used by billionaires and multi-multi-millionaires and no-one else. But the facts don't bear that out. We need to actually keep in mind that this policy manifesto is all about keeping people down, as Senator Seselja said. It's all about bringing people down to a common base level rather than helping them achieve their full potential and actually do something great for this country. It's easy to confuse the government's concern for the reckless policy agenda of the Labor Party, the Australian opposition, with a fascination for eastern European policies of pre-1989 governments, but it's because they are so closely aligned that there is that confusion. You don't have to look much further, as Senator Seselja said, than, in my case, the ALP Tasmanian branch state platform, which talks about its socialist foundations and principles. It actually talks about them as something underpinning the decisions it makes and how it will draft up policy. It's not a fascination with the eighties and Madonna and the other things we've talked about in this debate. It's actually a concern about taking us back to the future—taking us back to the eighties, to a time when we had tyrannical communist leaders ruling the world. (Time expired) 17:07 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I would like to pay tribute to Senator Cormann for calling out Labor on its policy position. Senator Cormann is someone—and people in this chamber may not know this—who, when the Berlin Wall was falling, drove with some university friends across to Berlin to watch the wall fall down and watch those East Berliners, those East Germans, run to freedom. We in this place have got to remember our history, and we've got to remember the part that the Labor Party has played in the history of Australia in terms of its failures at socialism. They admit over there that sometimes they're not very good socialists. That's because they're incompetent at everything they do, whether it is socialism or capitalism. What we've got with the modern Labor Party is a leader who doesn't have a backbone or an inherent set of values. What the Leader of the Opposition has realised is that the best way for him to win the election is look around and plagiarise. Mr Shorten has got on the interweb and typed in 'how to win an election', and what's come up is what Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have been doing in terms of this class-based warfare; this warfare of envy; this 'them and us' approach. In the Liberal National Party, we believe in freedom and lower taxes. We believe you get on with your lives and do it. We believe in smaller government and lower taxes. You want to grow your family, you want to grow your business, go ahead and do it. What's happened with the modern Labor Party is they've looked at what Jeremy Corbyn has done—that bearded nut job who is currently the leader of the British Labour Party. This is the guy who opposed the Northern Ireland peace process, who supports the IRA and who supports the PLO. They've looked at what Jeremy Corbyn has done and they've gone, 'He's promised to raise taxes. He's promised free money,' so Bill Shorten and the shadow cabinet have danced around the magic money tree like a bunch of drunken wobbegongs and gone, 'Come on down! We want all the free money to come on down'. They don't know where it's going to come from, except that they are going to tax other people for it. If the modern Labor Party stands for anything today, it stands for taxing. It stands for new taxes; it stands for more taxes; it stands for higher taxes. But if it doesn't stand for taxes, let's look at what they are doing with electricity. Let's look at South Australia. When you look at this motion, it talks about the obsession of the Turnbull government blah, blah, blah, rather than the economic priorities of Australian families in 2017. Let's look at Australian families who live in South Australia, who don't have a reliable electricity market. The modern Labor Party want South Australian families to power their homes not through coal but through a combination of rhythmic dancing, rabbit droppings and the squawks of galas—rather than making sure that when people turn on their light switches, the lights turn on, and when they turn on their TVs, their TVs come on. This is because Labor actually doesn't care about helping families; they care about themselves. When you look at the history of Labor in Australia, we on this side remember, and that's why we will oppose Labor until the day we die. We remember the state in which you left this country in 1931. We remember what you tried to do in 1949. We remember what you did in 1975—how you wanted to borrow money from the Baath Party of Iraq. We remember the state in which you left this country in 1996, when your Treasurer, who became Prime Minister, forced a recession upon this country—the recession that we had to have. How did that help Australian families? My people in Queensland remember what Labor did to Australian families. We remember those high interest rates. We remember you forcing businesses to go to the ground. We remember families out in the street because of the failures of Labor's economic policies. We remember the state that this country was left in when we lost office, sadly, in 2007—there was no debt at all. But in 2013, when we won office, the debt was going through the roof. That is hurting Australian families, because Labor actually only cares about power; they do not care about Australian families. They like to do these wedge politics. They've looked at Jeremy Corbyn. They want a them-and-us approach to Australian politics. But what they should be doing is working with the government to deliver lower taxes, to deliver a smaller government so businesses can grow and employ more people and get people more money in their back pockets so they can go and spend it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 6558 DOCUMENTS Consideration 6558 COMMITTEES 6559 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 6559 Report 6559 17:13 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I present an interim report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator KETTER 244247 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to table the interim report as part of the non-conforming building product inquiry. It is a sobering report, brought about by the events of the Lacrosse apartment building fire in 2014 and the tragic circumstances of the Grenfell Tower fire earlier this year. It is not acceptable in 2017 that people are injured and killed in their own homes. Homes should be places of safety, laughter, joy and community. To have lives put at risk or even lost in modern times is completely unacceptable. We can do better and we must do better. Throughout this inquiry, we've heard from a number of different stakeholders, and the number of process failures when it comes to construction is utterly bewildering. As Senator Carr, whom I thank for his participation in this inquiry, succinctly put it: 'Over the last few decades, there has been a plethora of deregulation and privatisation. Proper controls, audits and enforcement were not carefully put in place when deregulation and privatisation was carried out. The issue of dangerous, flammable polyethylene cladding is really just a symptom of much bigger problems.' We will continue to tackle these bigger problems through the rest of the inquiry, but for now we have this interim report, which I think highlights the problems that are occurring, and some sensible recommendations that can protect the Australian people. I'll turn to the problems that we have found with the use of this aluminium cladding. First, there is little accountability for non-conforming and non-compliant products in the supply chain. We heard evidence that importers and suppliers often have very little knowledge of where this cladding ends up—that it's used only in situations that conform to the National Construction Code. I am heartened by the fact that, in my home state, the Queensland government is moving to put accountability into the supply chain for importers, wholesalers and retailers when it comes to the sale of building products. This draft legislation from Queensland has been well received by most stakeholders, and I hope that it is implemented across the nation. Second, we heard evidence that certificates in many instances cannot be trusted. Fraudulent certificates seem to be rife, and the certificates do not contain significant information to explain where it is appropriate to use these products. The problems don't stop there. When it comes to product standards, the current cladding standard falls far short. Australian standard AS 1530.1 conducts only small-scale testing and doesn't actually provide a good guide as to how a product will perform under a full-scale fire. At this point, I do commend the Four Corners program this week, which highlighted this particular issue in some depth. The structure of the National Construction Code also has numerous ways in which unscrupulous builders might circumvent reasonable requirements when it comes to fire protections. In the words of one of the witnesses: The Building Code is too complicated. It is contradictory, with no hierarchy of control for various clauses which compete with each other. There were also concerns raised about a lack of standards for licensing, with many roles requiring little in terms of education and professional development, and some roles having no licensing requirements at all. In fact, in 2003, the Queensland Labor state government brought in licensing for wall cladding installers, which seems to be an important reason that more of this cladding isn't occurring in Queensland. It was actually one of the suppliers in our inquiry who made the point, I think, from recollection, that around 70 per cent of the cladding installed is done by one of four licensed installers of cladding. Substitution of non-compliant cladding is apparently rife throughout Australia, particularly since polyethylene cladding is slightly cheaper. It seems that cost dominates many of the decisions taken in the building industry, to the detriment of end consumers and the wider public. When it comes to building surveyors, those entrusted with keeping an eye on builders, we heard about problems there, too. We heard concerning evidence that surveyors are often in a situation where they do only visual inspections on sites and are often unable to verify the cladding type once the cladding is installed and sealed up, so they are not actually able to see if it is fire-resistant cladding or another form of cladding. Other stakeholders shared concerns about surveyors being not much more than certificate collectors, constrained to trusting electronic certificates sent by email. We also heard concerns that many surveyors are paid for by the builders, which makes it all the more difficult for a surveyor to challenge a builder where they suspect nonconformance or noncompliance. In the end, this leaves much of the risk of nonconformance and noncompliance with the owners. In many cases body corporates are not formed until after the construction is complete and are left with hidden faults that emerge many years after any warranties have expired. The Owners Corporation Network lamented that there is a greater duty of care in the sale of a refrigerator than in the delivery of people's homes. No matter where you turn in this industry, you can find people trying to evade their responsibilities and place the blame somewhere else, and in the case of flammable cladding the process hasn't failed in just one place—it has failed at almost every point of the chain. That is why there needs to be a multifaceted approach to addressing this issue, which I will address now. Let's talk about the recommendations in the report. Polyethylene ACP cladding can currently be installed in low-rise buildings and signage. We have to trust that people are not using it in inappropriate circumstances, like high-rises. The committee has come to the conclusion that the public risks associated with this product outweigh the benefits that it can provide, so our first recommendation is that the government implement a total ban. For a small additional cost we can remove the risk entirely. The second major area is licensing. Some accountability needs to rest with the people responsible for installing building products as well as people such as building surveyors, building inspectors, builders and project managers. If there is a threat that people might lose their licence if they don't comply with the codes, then we stand a better chance. It would seem that the federal government has the capacity under the training regime in terms of Commonwealth funding powers. There is a need for national licensing, for a high bar to be set for qualifications and for it to be harmonised across the states to improve productivity. The federal government can and should act in this area. The committee has also recommended that accountability for others in the supply chain be strengthened, with the Queensland legislation—the Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products—Chain of Responsibility and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2017—being a very good starting point. In fact, I don't think any witnesses in the course of the inquiry provided any negative feedback on the Queensland bill. When it comes to Australian standards, we heard evidence that the prohibitive costs of purchasing building product and meeting construction standards can also inhibit strong code compliance. I have urged the government to consider making Australian standards free for users. In response to the issue of strata properties, often high-density apartment blocks, I have recommended that a duty of care be extended to strata communities so that builders and developers have the responsibility to deliver compliant buildings to end-user apartment owners. Regarding Commonwealth-funded construction projects, the committee has recommended that the new Federal Safety Commissioner be given adequate resources to carry out audits against the National Construction Code performance requirements for building materials. In addition, there should be a penalties regime for noncompliance. Commonwealth-funded construction should be done according to the national code. In summary, the issue is a very sobering one. We can debate many issues in this chamber, some more trivial than others, but this report goes directly to the safety of the Australian people. In line with this, I would encourage Minister Laundy to do his job as minister. Along with this report I have tabled a letter in which the minister has bizarrely requested the committee to investigate the claims made throughout our public hearings. Memo to the minister: you are the minister, you are part of the government, you control the regulators and it is on you to fix this mess. It is not the responsibility of a parliamentary committee. 17:24 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I concur with Senator Ketter, the chair of this inquiry by the Economics Reference Committee, and commend him for the work that he's done—and, of course, I commend the work of the secretariat and my colleagues. This very important inquiry on non-conforming building products was instigated several years ago, at the end of 2015, and that involved my then colleague Senator John Madigan and Senator Lambie. The trigger for this inquiry was the Lacrosse building fire in Melbourne in November 2014. It was due to luck alone that no lives were lost in that fire. The committee quite rightly revisited the issue of cladding following the awful tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire in London in June this year. This inquiry is very timely and very urgent. I agree with everything Senator Ketter has said about the need for urgent action in relation to this. It is up to the government, it is up to the minister and it is up to the states to take immediate action in relation to this. If the government won't act, the next step will be to have an amendment to the Customs Act in terms of safer building products so that, once and for all, we can ban polyethylene building products coming into this country. We don't need them. We can go without them. The cost differential between the two per square metre is minuscule. That is the evidence the inquiry has heard. It would ensure that these products are not used in high-rise buildings. At the moment, the flammable material can be used for shop fittings; it can be used on single-storey buildings. But why let them into the country in the first place? The cost involved would be negligible in terms of having a fire retardant, a material that is actually safe, so that you will not effectively have buildings wrapped in petrol. On a recent episode of Four Corners, fire safety engineer Tony Enright stated: A kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as a kilogram of petrol, and it gets worse than that because polyethylene is denser than petrol too, so that's about, a kilogram of polyethylene is like about one and a bit, one and a half litres of petrol. … If you look at a one metre by one metre square section— of PE core cladding— that will have about three kilograms, the equivalent of about five litres of petrol. People live in these buildings and sleep there overnight. So why would we have any of those buildings effectively wrapped in petrol? That is what we are talking about. There must be immediate action in relation to this. That is why this inquiry has been so important. Everything that the chair has said is spot-on. We need to make sure that we have action by the states and the Commonwealth in relation to this as a matter of urgency. Unless the states act with alacrity, with a great sense of urgency, the way to stop this from occurring is to stop bringing this stuff into the country. But that still leaves thousands of buildings that have this cladding. There must be that audit. I am not satisfied that the audit has been as comprehensive as it could have been. We asked questions of the South Australian government—I think they were questions by Senator Hume—about the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, the two magnificent buildings. We should have been told immediately what sort of cladding they had, because there is an audit that is occurring on that. I think the government has assured us there isn't a problem. But this is information a government should have at its fingertips with an audit. So ban the stuff from coming into the country from now on, and let's have a comprehensive audit so remediation can be carried out and people can live and work safely in these buildings. This report is of utmost urgency. The committee has done its work—and I note that Senator Carr was a very active participant on this committee. We have done our work. We have issued the warnings. We have said there is no excuse not to act. Let us hope that governments federal, state and territory do not hesitate to act on the recommendations of this inquiry to do what is necessary to protect public safety. We cannot, under any circumstances, bear the tragedy that occurred in London just a few months ago. We must prevent any risk of that happening here. That is why this report is of utmost public importance and urgency and we must act on it. 17:29 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria This report of the Economics References Committee on non-conforming building products is one of those seminal reports that the Senate has an opportunity to deal with from time to time. I know a great deal of public debate occurs about the role of the Senate. I think there is often undue criticism paid to the way the Senate operates. One of the most important functions the Senate has, and I think the real secret of the Senate's power in this country, is the power of exposure. Senator Ketter, as the chair of this committee, has led it through a daunting series of public hearings and through the examination of submissions from over 160 submitters. I have been here a few years now and I can say to you that it is rare that you have an opportunity to see evidence presented to a Senate committee from such a diverse group of people in an area of the Australian economy that's often renowned for its division and diversity. But, in this case, what's remarkable is the uniformity of views. As a participant in this inquiry, I have been struck by how broadly based the concerns of the building practitioners have been. Whether it be employer organisations, unions or consumer groups, a very powerful concern has been expressed about the systematic failure of the regulatory regime in this country to deal with fundamental issues of public safety. The real anxiety that I have here is that there is an opportunity for this parliament to put an end to the buck-passing on what, for some time, has been a litany of abrogations of responsibilities by just about everybody concerned with the building industry. It is a common feature of this industry that someone always has somebody else to blame. The circumstances around the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne highlighted something in this country, whereby a fire started by a cigarette butt spread within 11 minutes across 23 storeys of a residential building. We were incredibly lucky that no-one was killed in that circumstance. The firefighters who witnessed that, men of extraordinary experience—31 years experience—said that was the most devastating fire they've ever witnessed in an urban area. That testimony was repeated many times over by senior firefighters across the country. This is in the circumstance where we saw the recent events in the United Kingdom, where a fire tragically killed 80 people, highlighting once again the use of this plastic-centred aluminium cladding, which essentially explodes. There have been 19 significant fires like this in multi-storey buildings around the world. In one case in Dubai, a building caught fire twice. There have been a number of fires in Australia, including a couple in Melbourne. According to the evidence, at least 10,000 buildings across the country contain this building material. According to the evidence, we have here a systematic failure as a result of the privatisation and the deregulation of the building industry, which has led to what is now clearly a major problem of public safety in this country. What we have is an abrogation of responsibilities where governments have been, essentially, seeking to refer this to one committee of procrastinators after another so that nothing actually gets dealt with. Senator Ketter has drawn our attention to what's happened in Queensland, and I commend the Queensland government for at least making that effort. They're the only government in the country that have actually made an effort. In the case of Victoria, litigations are continuing about the Lacrosse fire nearly four years after the event. When you talk to officials about these things, they don't dispute the evidence. It's not as if people are saying, 'No, this is not happening.' They are not saying that there hasn't been widespread document fraud, widespread certification fraud or widespread substitution of products. When you ask officials, for instance, from the Victorian Building Authority, they say, 'Yes, it's true'. They acknowledge it. When you ask, 'How many prosecutions have there been for fraud?' they say, 'We know of one with some evidence.' There's no-one taking action here, so, in the circumstances in Melbourne, it's the residents of the Lacrosse building who are now left responsible for removing this cladding. This is cladding which was, according to the evidence before the committee, saving $3 a square metre. It's going to cost billions to take this stuff down. That's an extraordinary proposition. Audits have been undertaken across the country and governments all over the country are trying to duck and weave when it comes to how many buildings are involved. There are 2½ thousand, according to a leaked submission, in New South Wales alone. So our recommendations go to some pretty simple propositions here. In the first instance, this is stuff that's so dangerous that it can't be used in low-rise buildings. It's just not justified to be used in low-rise buildings. Everyone acknowledges that it should not be used in high-rise buildings, which it has been. When you ask the simple question, 'How does that occur?' people say, 'It is compliant for low-rise buildings.' It shouldn't be. It should be banned, and that's the recommendation of the committee. Just like asbestos, this stuff—the plastic cores—is too dangerous to be used for the external cladding of buildings. We are saying that we have to bring public accountability back into the system for public safety in the building industry. There has to be a national licensing authority to secure that. In the medical industry, if a doctor's caught doing malpractice, they lose their licence and are deregistered. This committee's recommending to the parliament that that's one way of bringing back public accountability into the building industry for all building practitioners. We're saying that, if you want to breach the code, there ought to be penalties for breaching the code with regard to Commonwealth buildings. The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner that's in place there is an absolute paper tiger. It has no real authority, no real powers and no real resources. It is a complete joke of an office. For Commonwealth-funded buildings, that should change. We should ensure that actions are put in place. The Commonwealth Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science is the responsible minister for the Building Ministers' Forum. He should not only take responsibility for this but also ensure that the supply chain is actually brought back into this. We should ensure that Australian standards and the products of their work—particularly the building codes themselves—are available to the industry, but not at such prohibitive prices as to make them unavailable. This is an important inquiry that's making recommendations to the parliament which I trust the political parties will take up. It provides an opportunity to restore public confidence and public accountability for public safety and provides an opportunity for this parliament to show real leadership, because clearly this government has failed to do so. The assistant minister's letter to the committee suggesting that it was the parliamentary committee's responsibility to police breaches of the code is a complete joke, and it demonstrates why this government just doesn't understand its own responsibilities to prosecute people who have broken the law. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6564 COMMITTEES Report 6564 17:39 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports from the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2017. Ordered that the reports be printed. Regulations and Ordinances Committee 6565 Delegated Legislation Monitor 6565 17:40 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No.11 of 2017. Ordered that the report be printed. Education and Employment References Committee 6565 Report 6565 17:40 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on corporate avoidance of the Fair Work Act 2009 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MARSHALL 00AOP I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I just want to make a few very brief comments. It was a really eye-opening inquiry for this committee. It was generated because of a number of high-profile disputes which seemed to undermine the objectives of the Fair Work Act. The committee started on a task of looking at the behaviour of corporations and other employers and ascertaining whether or not the Fair Work Act was, in fact, fit for purpose. What we know at the moment—and some figures from the ABS have just come out today again confirming this—is that the profit share of GDP is increasing at the same time as the wages share of GDP is going backwards. As well as that share going backwards, wages themselves are in decline and, in real terms, are going backwards. We've got agreement making in decline and award reliance increasing. At the same time, we've got union membership decreasing and noncompliance with the Fair Work Act increasing. All the evidence points to a system that is underpinned by an act which is now not delivering for working people in this country. The act is not offering protections for working people. The inquiry uncovered, quite frankly, corporate indifference to the plight and the welfare of employees of major corporations. We saw so many examples of large multinational, wealthy, high-profit-making corporations simply structuring their businesses in such a way to reduce wages, reduce job security and reduce conditions, all in order to save money for the company but with total disregard for the welfare of the people who, in some cases, had provided 30 to 40 years of service to those companies. Workers were put in positions where, through no fault of their own, contracts were re-let to different companies and they were simply replaced and discarded, all in the name of a number of companies thinking, 'If we can pay people the lowest legal minimum wage that we can, that seems to be our obligation.' That is not what the Fair Work Act was meant to achieve. The Fair Work Act was meant to provide a basis of fair opportunities for employers and employees to encourage them to agree and to take advantage of productivity improvements—which, by the way, are at an all-time high in this country. But, instead, it's enabling employers to actually undertake a race to the bottom. It is clearly the conclusion of the committee that the Fair Work Act is no longer fit for purpose and providing those protections that we set out to try to achieve when the Fair Work Act replaced the failed Work Choices experiment. The committee has made a number of recommendations, but I have to say that implementing those recommendations probably ultimately won't be enough. I think the committee would have been of the view that this inquiry could have gone on for a lot longer. We would have identified many more problems, and we may have been in a position—and still may be, into the future—of making many more detailed and specific recommendations of changes to the act. But at this point, we have made some recommendations. We would urge all policymakers to look at those and consider their implementation. It is my view and I think the view of the majority of the committee that the Fair Work Act itself needs to be revamped and rewritten from the ground up, to make it a system that underpins fairness in the system. That fairness is no longer there. It cannot be relied upon. It is not providing that structural framework to benefit working people in this country, to offer them protections. Unfortunately, we all too often see, when those protections aren't there for working people, that corporations—not all of them but many—take advantage of those loopholes, those structural deficiencies, and simply seek to cut wages and conditions and job security of working people in this country. We would urge everyone to start thinking about what needs to replace the Fair Work Act. It's been in place since 2008. We have come a long way. It has served a purpose in the past but if we are going to move forward as a wealthy, high-wage-earning country with good protections, where working people aren't working poor, we need to revamp the underpinning structures of the industrial relations system. I commend the report to the Senate and, if no-one else wishes to speak to it, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 6566 Report 6566 17:46 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the ninth report of 2017, Human rights scrutiny report, and move that the report be printed. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SMITH 241710 I seek leave to have my tabling statement incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 9 of 2017. The scrutiny report seeks to provide parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation. This is pursuant to the committee's mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to examine the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In undertaking this examination, the committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation, in which it is supported by an external legal adviser and secretariat staff. Like all parliamentarians, scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. The report does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. The majority of new bills considered in this report – fourteen – were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. As outlined in chapter one of the report, the committee is also seeking further information in relation to nine bills and instruments. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters or the committee otherwise requires further information to complete its examination. The committee has also provided one advice only comment to a legislation proponent. As set out in chapter two of the report, the committee has also concluded its examination of a number of Federal Financial Relations (National Partnership payments) Determinations following correspondence with the relevant minister. The examination provides a positive example of constructive engagement with the committee's dialogue process. The response received from the assistant minister to the committee's initial requests allowed the committee to conclude that payments to the states and territories through these determinations were likely to promote a range of economic, social and cultural rights. The committee has requested inclusion of this additional information in statements of compatibility accompanying such determinations going forward. In this respect, I welcome the assistant minister's commitment to include this kind of information in statements of compatibility from September 2017 onwards. I encourage my fellow senators and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 9 of 2017 to the Senate. 17:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I would like to draw attention to a number of points on the findings of this report and the comments the committee makes on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless debit Card) Bill 2017. At paragraph 1.136 they make the point: While the report states that 'overall, the [trial] has been effective to date' in terms of its performance against certain pre-established indicators, the report also contains some other more mixed findings on the operation of the scheme. It goes on to state a number of findings. The committee carried out its consideration of this bill prior to the so-called Wave 2 report being tabled. I suspect some people will be tempted to say, 'Don't worry, that report only refers to evidence in Wave 1.' But Wave 2 is a comparatively flawed analysis of the trial, such that you could just substitute their concerns about Wave 1 with Wave 2. All that's changed between those two so-called independent evaluations are some statistics. If you look at some of the points raised, in terms of making people's lives worse off, the Wave 2 report says, 'Across the two sites, participants were more likely to indicate that it had made their lives worse rather than better,' which is very similar to 49 per cent of participants in the Wave 1 report saying their lives were worse. Not only that: you layer on top the very skewed database. Even the report acknowledges that the way the evaluations have been undertaken could lead to a skewing of the data. But more important is the way that the so-called figures they got through their push polling survey process have been skewed. For example, in Wave 2, of the 479 responses to their surveys, 228 reported none of the behaviours—we are talking here about drugs, alcohol and gambling, which are the three behaviours that the government is supposedly trying to knock off. So what they are doing is taking a sample and saying, 'There has been a reduction in alcohol consumption,' but it is against a much smaller proportion than the 479 responses. In other words, the percentage of people they say have reduced their consumption is, in fact, much smaller when you consider it across the whole of the group that they are supposed to have surveyed. It is not an accurate reflection of the number of people who have supposedly reduced alcohol consumption. If you go to the next point, they talk about the study where the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the ANU reported: 'It is very difficult to articulate and find out what impact the actual measures had against the alcohol restrictions that are in place in both East Kimberly and Ceduna.' Paragraph 1.138 says: … the concerns raised above in relation to some of the interim report's findings suggest the trials have not been definitively positive. It is therefore not clear from the statement of compatibility as to why extending and expanding the trials will be effective to achieve the objectives of the measure. Those are very good points that are being made. Paragraph 1.141 says: There is a concern that the trial is now being extended through the bill, with no specified end date or sunsetting provision and potentially without adequate consultation with the affected communities. In this respect, the bill would permit 'trials' to be rolled out, extended and imposed on communities on a compulsory basis through legislative instruments without existing safeguards. Since when do you have trials that don't have end dates or sunsetting provisions? That is a point they make very well. They say: … the cashless debit card would be imposed without an assessment of individual participants' suitability for the scheme. It is a compulsory trial. It is compulsory, because everybody who is on a working-age payment has to be on this card. They make the point in the committee comment section: Previous human rights assessments of the trials identified that subjecting a person to compulsory income management engages and limits the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to social security, and the right to privacy and family. They then go on to list a number of points that they are raising with the minister. I would like people, when they are viewing this report, to also look and consider the other major problems that you have with the Wave 2 evaluation of these trials. For a start, they push poll. There is a survey that they send out to participants that asks a lot of questions. Something has been pointed out to me a number of times by others talking to me about this, and I also have made the same point myself: if you know I'm from the government and I'm coming to ask you about your approach to drinking, gambling and illegal drug-taking, and you know your social security depends on this, guess what you're going to say? You are most likely to say: 'Of course I'm not drinking. Of course I've reduced my drinking.' That is the same approach they took to the evaluation of the Northern Territory intervention, and that's what they found—people's responses did not reflect what was happening on the ground. That is qualitative information, not quantitative information. The report is highly reliant on anecdotal evidence: what people think and what people report. Going back to the survey, which, as I said, is qualitative, not quantitative, guess what one of the final questions is? At the conclusion, it says, 'Name three positive things about the trial.' Even if I hate the trial, I have to say three positive things, then they get trumpeted by the government, who say, 'Look at all these positive things people said about the report.' That is push polling in anybody's book. You then look at the fact that the report conveniently does not properly mention the crime statistics. It doesn't deal with these adequately. We know that the crime statistics for Kununurra are available, because we got them through the WA parliament from the WA Police. They show a significant increase in some key crime areas in Kununurra—not all of them, but some significant ones—around robbery, theft and threatening behaviour. Similar statistics in Ceduna, which have been available on a more regular basis, I have to say, also show that some areas of crime have increased significantly. One of the key areas that people have raised with me in the time since this report was released last Friday—significantly, hours after the government made its announcement that it's introducing the card into Kalgoorlie, not allowing any of us to have a proper analysis before they're out there misrepresenting the data—which they haven't released the data on and looked at, is the domestic violence figures. We understand that they are in fact available but haven't been released. I'm aware that people are trying to access that data. This Wave 2 report does not show, if you look at the data properly, that this has been successful. There are a number of people in both these communities that think it has made their lives worse, that it has not achieved the objectives that the government says it has. Please, read the human rights committee comments on this and substitute Wave 2 for their comments on Wave 1. They obviously haven't had time to look at the final Wave 2 report, but all their comments are still extremely pertinent to the bill. I recommend people have a look at those comments. 17:57 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales I will be very brief. I also rise to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: human rights scrutiny report, report 9 of 2017. My very brief remarks are going to be with reference to an item within that, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2017, which I note has been sponsored by Mr Andrew Wilkie MP from the other place. The idea of whether or not we should be enshrining Australian rights within a bill of rights is a debate we continually have every couple of years. Many people have different views on this debate, and these views have been very well canvassed in many places. I think it's very timely, however, that we have a brief observation regarding this, because when we talk about human rights, when we talk about a bill of rights, we invariably end up talking about issues like freedom of speech. We end up talking about what types of freedoms are and aren't there. In the inner west suburbs of my home town of Sydney, the area where I live, around Burwood and Strathfield, in the past few days hateful material has been letterboxed and handed out, attacking the Labor Party in what would be deemed a clear breach of electoral guidelines. These are the types of guidelines I worry a bill of rights would seek to nullify. There is a flier doing the rounds of my street at the moment, and it tries to be powerful at the start, with these words: 'Do not vote Labor'— Senator Smith 241710 I say that all the time. Senator DASTYARI 225099 People are allowed their political views. People say that all the time. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 What's controversial about that? Senator DASTYARI 225099 Wait for it. The next bit is: 'If you want to protect family value and future'—I disagree with that, but it's well within debate. The next point is: 'if you do not want your children become homosexuality'. I note the grammar is wrong. It is also in Chinese and Arabic. I'm reliably informed they actually get it wrong in three languages. It's the next one that got me though—and this worries me because this is the kind of thing I worry about: 'if you do not want your children to learn how to sponky their monkeys'. That is what this flyer being circulated says—'sponky their monkeys'. I'm not sure what that means, but I think I know what that means. It also says: 'if you do not want the children have 63 genders, do not vote Labor'. This is hateful, ridiculous and wrong. It goes against everything we believe in. Just because we have political freedoms in this country, it doesn't mean this kind of hateful, hurtful—no-one wants to see children with 63 genders, apparently, 'sponking their monkeys' and 'becoming homosexuality'. Apparently, this is what this flyer is trying to warn us all about. It's ridiculous and there's no place for it in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 6570 Scrutiny Digest 6570 18:01 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest 10 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Ordered that the report be printed. DOCUMENTS 6570 DOCUMENTS Future Frigate Program 6570 Order for the Production of Documents 6570 18:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table a document relating to the order for production of documents concerning the Future Frigate tender. COMMITTEES 6570 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 6570 Membership 6570 18:02 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of committees. 18:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move: That Senator McAllister replace Senator Chisholm on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the integrity of the water market in the Murray-Darling Basin, and Senator Chisholm be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 6571 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017, International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017 6571

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017

International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017

First Reading 6571 18:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 6571 18:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (COMPETITION POLICY REVIEW) BILL 2017 This Bill contains a significant package of reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These reforms are designed to simplify the law and better deal with anti‑competitive conduct while supporting pro-competitive behaviour. They will strengthen Australia's competition law to improve the long term welfare of consumers, businesses and the economy. In 2014, the Government commissioned an independent 'root and branch' review into Australia's competition framework: the Harper Competition Policy Review. Professor Ian Harper and the review Panel consulted extensively with businesses, consumers, regulators and legal experts and found that while our competition laws have served Australia well, they should be reformed to enhance their effectiveness. This Bill implements a significant number of the competition law reforms recommended by the Harper Review and agreed to by the Government in its response. It also implements the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2013 Inquiry into the National Access Regime, which the Government accepted in its response to the Harper Review. Schedule 1 to this Bill amends the definition of 'competition' in section 4 of the Act to confirm that competition includes competition from goods and services that are capable of importation, as well as those actually imported. This change clarifies that a credible threat of import competition is relevant to competition analysis. Schedule 2 to this Bill amends the Act to simplify and better target the provisions on cartel conduct. This includes changes to confine the application of the provisions to cartel conduct affecting competition in Australian markets, and to change the scope of the joint venture exceptions to ensure that they do not limit legitimate commercial transactions or increase business compliance costs. Schedule 3 to this Bill repeals the price signalling provisions. Since their introduction in 2012, no cases have been brought under these provisions. The price signalling provisions are replaced with a general prohibition on corporations engaging in a concerted practice that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. This prohibition will capture anti-competitive conduct that falls short of a contract, arrangement or understanding as the courts have interpreted each of those terms in section 45. An exception is provided where the only parties to a concerted practice are the Crown and one or more government authorities. Schedule 3 also repeals the separate prohibition on exclusionary provisions from the Act, which substantially overlaps with the cartel prohibitions in the Act. Schedule 4 to this Bill repeals the definition of 'exclusionary provision' and a defence to the prohibition on exclusionary provisions, following the repeal of this prohibition by Schedule 3. Schedule 5 to this Bill simplifies the provisions of the Act by removing separate, complex prohibitions on covenants that substantially lessen competition and expanding the general prohibition on contracts that substantially lessen competition to include covenants. Schedule 6 amends the Act to increase the maximum penalty for breaching the secondary boycott provisions, so that it aligns with penalties for other breaches of the competition law. As secondary boycotts are harmful to trading freedom and therefore harmful to competition, they warrant a significant penalty. Schedule 7 to this Bill amends the Act to prohibit third line forcing only where it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. This will bring the prohibition on third line forcing in line with the similar prohibition on second line forcing and with other comparable jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand. Schedule 8 to this Bill amends the Act to allow a corporation or person to notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of resale price maintenance conduct, as an alternative to seeking authorisation from the Commission for such conduct. It is appropriate to make notification available for resale price maintenance conduct because this conduct may in some circumstances be pro-competitive, and notification is a quicker and less expensive means of obtaining an exemption than authorisation. Schedule 8 also provides an exemption from the resale price maintenance prohibition for conduct between related bodies corporate, reflecting that companies within a corporate group are not considered to be competitors. Schedule 9 to this Bill makes a number of amendments to the Act. It simplifies the complex provisions governing the authorisation process. It makes the Commission the decision maker at first instance for merger authorisations, as it is best suited to make these decisions. It also grants the Commission the power to issue a 'class exemption' for business practices that are unlikely to raise competition concerns, or are likely to generate a net public benefit. This will remove the need for individual applications for authorisation by creating 'safe harbours' for business and thereby reduce compliance and administration costs and increase certainty. Schedule 9 also allows the Commission to impose conditions on notifications for collective bargaining that involves collective boycott conduct, and grants the Commission a power to issue a 'stop notice' requiring notified collective boycott conduct to cease. These reforms will introduce greater flexibility into the collective bargaining notification process to ensure that it is more widely used. This is likely to be of particular benefit to small businesses, given their lack of bargaining power relative to larger suppliers. The Commission may also impose conditions on notifications for resale price maintenance. Schedule 10 to this Bill extends section 83 of the Act so that a party bringing certain proceedings may rely on admissions of fact as well as findings of fact made in certain other proceedings. This will help to reduce the cost of private actions, as a person relying on a previous admission of fact as prima facie evidence will not need to establish that fact. Schedule 11 to this Bill extends the Commission's power to obtain information, documents and evidence in section 155 to cover investigations of alleged contraventions of court enforceable undertakings and merger authorisation determinations. Schedule 11 also introduces a 'reasonable search' defence to the offence of refusing or failing to comply with section 155. This reflects the increasing cost of documentary searches as businesses retain many more documents, such as emails, than in the past. Schedule 11 also increases the fine for non‑compliance with section 155 to bring it into line with penalties for similar notice-based investigative powers. Schedule 12 amends Part IIIA of the Act, which contains the National Access Regime, to implement the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its Inquiry into the Regime. This will ensure that the Regime better target the economic problem of an enduring lack of effective competition in markets for nationally significant infrastructure services. Schedule 12 amends and clarifies the declaration criteria that must be used by the National Competition Council and the designated Minister in determining whether a service should be declared. Notably, the current 'private profitability' test is replaced by a 'natural monopoly' test. Schedule 12 also introduces a new power for the Minister to revoke certification of a state access regime. Schedule 13 to this Bill deals with the transitional application of amendments made by the Bill. Schedule 14 to this Bill makes various amendments to streamline the administration of the Act, to reduce compliance burdens for business, individuals and Government, while preserving the protections available under the Act. These amendments focus on the requirements of the Australian Consumer Law. Together, these reforms contained in the Bill will strengthen, simplify and modernise our competition laws. The reforms will support the enforcement role of our national competition regulator and facilitate pro-competitive conduct to the long-term benefit of Australian businesses, consumers and the economy. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT (NEW ARRANGEMENTS TO BORROW) BILL 2017 Today, I introduce a Bill to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to renew the International Monetary Fund's New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). These amendments will ensure that the standing appropriation and authority to borrow that allows the Government to make payments to the IMF under the current NAB will continue for the renewed arrangement. The NAB is a multilateral borrowing agreement that under its renewal will provide a line of credit to the IMF of around A$329 billion from 37 participant countries or institutions, including Australia. Australia joined the NAB as a founding member in 1997. On 4 November 2016, the IMF Executive Board agreed to renew the NAB for a period of five years, from its current expiry date of 16 November 2017 to 16 November 2022. Australia's funding commitments of around A$4.05 billion will remain unchanged under the renewed NAB. The broader terms and conditions of the NAB will also remain largely unchanged. The NAB has already been used numerous times to help manage crises, including assistance to developing, transitioning and advanced member countries. The renewal of the NAB forms part of a broader global effort to maintain the current level of IMF resourcing, to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources available to effectively fulfil its global role in economic crisis prevention and resolution. Ensuring that the IMF has sufficient financial resources in place provides confidence to markets and other economic actors that the IMF has the resources it needs to continue to play its role effectively. This is an important factor that underpins ongoing confidence to trade and invest. As a successful open trading economy, Australia's prosperity relies on strong and stable growth in the world economy. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 6574

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 6574 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017, Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017 6574

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017

Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 6574 18:04 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 6574

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 6574 18:05 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017 6574

Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 6574 18:05 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 6575

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6575 18:05 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2016. The purpose of the bill is to create the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, the DRCA. The bill aims to duplicate the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998, the SRCA, as a standalone act with amendments that will give full control of the act to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In his second reading speech, the minister emphasised: … eligibility and benefits under the standalone act will be the same as those currently available to serving and former ADF members under the existing SRCA. The minister stressed: There are no other changes to benefits or entitlements in the new act or the enabling bill. Currently, pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for veterans, members of the Defence Force and their families are provided for under a labyrinth of three separate and complex legislative acts. These are the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the VEA; the SRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA. Unfortunately, this has meant that there are inconsistencies between the three acts as they each provide for different benefits, rates of payment and different criteria giving rise to entitlements under each of those acts. These complex legislative arrangements have resulted in some ADF members and veterans being covered under multiple schemes and have contributed to the frustration, confusion and, in some cases, despair amongst the Defence Force, veterans communities, advocates and staff as they seek to navigate a legislative minefield. We know from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's inquiry into the suicide of veterans and its report entitled The constant battle that the burden of legislative complexity and administrative hurdles impacts veterans when they are seeking support at a vulnerable period of their lives. These issues were the subject of a number of the report's recommendations that I trust the government will take up, including a systemic review conducted by the Productivity Commission into simplifying the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. The VEA principally provides benefits and entitlements for those who served in wartime, particular operational deployment and particular peacetime service between 7 December 1972 and 30 June 2004. Defence personnel who served during the British nuclear tests in Australia of the 1950s and 1960s are also covered, if certain criteria are met. VEA veterans suffering an injury or disease arising from, or further exacerbated by, their full-time service and are entitled to a disability pension and medical treatment. Some veterans may also be eligible for compensation under the SRCA, offset against their pension. The SRCA provides coverage for illness, injury or death suffered as a result of peacetime and peacekeeping service from 3 January 1949 to 30 June 2004 and for periods of operational service between 7 April 1994 and 30 June 2004. The MRCA, on the other hand, covers members who served on or after 1 July 2004, providing rehabilitation and compensation coverage for warlike, non-warlike and peacetime service. The SRCA and the MRCA operate more like modern workers compensation legislation, providing rehabilitation and compensation coverage for military service related injuries, illness or death. The creation of the DRCA will mean that all three of the separate compensation acts that cover members and veterans will now come under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The passing of this bill and subsequent implementation of the DRCA will provide for a complete separation of the legislative framework for defence related claims from the Comcare scheme under the SRCA. The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to consider its detail, given the complexity of the bill. I thank the committee for its careful examination of this bill and acknowledge the feedback provided by veterans, those that advocate for them and other stakeholders. I note, however, that the open period for submissions was only two weeks, during which time 10 submissions were received. Submissions made to the inquiry noted the rushed nature of the inquiry process. The government must be mindful of the limited resources of many veterans advocacy groups when compared with the might of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in being able to assess and analyse proposed legislation. Whilst there had been consultation about the proposed legislation prior to its introduction, DVA officials conceded that ESORT members did not have access to the provisions of the bill until 9 November 2016, the day it was introduced into the parliament. I counsel the government that further consideration of complex legislation as it relates to Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families should be properly ventilated amongst the very people affected and the organisations that advocate for them, rather than simply going higher up the chain of command. This should occur prior to the introduction of proposed legislation. As Brian Briggs of Slater and Gordon Lawyers said in his submission to the inquiry into the bill, consulting only with organisations such as ESORT and Defence 'does not paint a holistic picture of the effects of these reforms' and 'excludes the opinions of those who are at the heart of the system and those who will be most deeply affected'. The government could do this by circulating the exposure draft of the proposed legislation on the department's website for a reasonable amount of time and call for submissions, as the Attorney-General has done recently with proposed changes to the Family Law Act. Whilst the Nick Xenophon Team support the bill and acknowledge the commonsense approach of having all three pieces of legislation that deal with compensation and rehabilitation come under the ambit of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, we remain concerned about aspects of this bill and its effects. The bill creates new section 121B that gives the minister the power to modify the act by way of regulation to ensure that no person, except the Commonwealth, is disadvantaged by the enactment of the DRCA. This type of provision is commonly known as a Henry VIII clause. Such clauses give the power for regulations to be made which amend, repeal or are inconsistent with the primary legislation. Henry VIII clauses are a double-edged sword because they allow the executive branch of the government unfettered power to make regulations that can modify the application of legislation without sufficient parliamentary oversight. The explanatory memorandum for the bill states that: The regulations to be made under new section 121B may require a retrospective application and are intended to operate in a purely beneficial way to deal with any anomalies that may arise where there is a retrospective application of the [DRCA] which will need to refer to the earlier version of the [SRCA] that applied at the time for which eligibility is being determined. Section 121B is drafted with a qualifier—that is, section 121B(2)—which provides that the minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make such regulations to ensure that no person, except the Commonwealth, is disadvantaged by the passage of the DRCA. The department submitted that the inclusion of the Henry VIII clause was made following advice from the Australian Government Solicitor as a means of providing a remedy for any adverse consequences that may arise from the unique manner in which the DRCA was enacted. Further, the AGS recommended that regulations to modify the operation of the DRCA could be made under the clause only if the minister certified to the Governor-General that he or she is satisfied that such a modification is necessary or desirable to ensure the re-enactment of the DRCA does not place any person other than the Commonwealth at a disadvantage. In addition, any regulations which are made pursuant to section 121B are to be tabled in both houses of parliament as a disallowable instrument and to sit for 15 days before coming into operation. The government has been clear that the intention is for the clause not to be utilised, that its inclusion is there as a fail-safe only in the event of any unintended consequences that would have left a veteran worse off. The Nick Xenophon Team notes the importance of the inclusion of this clause in the bill which can be utilised only should a person be made worse off by the DRCA's creation. We note that the regulations made under this provision of the act will only be made to the benefit of the individual, not to the benefit of the Commonwealth. On this basis, the Nick Xenophon Team supports the inclusion of this clause in the bill. I have been negotiating with the government on providing a review mechanism for any potential regulations made should section 121B be utilised and believe this will provide an additional safety net to address any concerns. I understand that the senator acting on behalf of Minister Payne will address this during in his summing up of the bill. During the inquiry, concerns were also raised about case law that pertains to the SRCA not being relied upon when making claims under the DRCA. On that point, Mr Briggs said: A number of helpful cases have been fought and won in favour of veterans' rights and entitlements under the SRCA. Several of these precedents have rectified unfair and unfavourable DVA decisions regarding veterans' entitlements. As a result, the ability to refer to these important decisions by the courts has given greater certainty to veterans and has improved their access to justice … The threat posed by the DRCA is that these authoritative rulings may no longer apply, especially if the existing SRCA guidelines and policy advices are repealed, amended or revoked … On this issue, however, the department submitted: … the enactment provisions of the DRCA make it clear that in retrospectively applying the DRCA to the determination of a claim, it will be the version of the SRCA that was applicable at the time the injury or illness was sustained that will be used in the determination of that claim. As such, any case law (whether related to military or civilian employees), which was applicable to the interpretation and determination of the relevant provisions of the SRCA, will continue to apply for the purposes of the same relevant provisions of the DRCA. During a hearing for the inquiry into the suicide of veterans Mr Larter, an advocate for SAS soldiers, said: The DRCA. There is language in there that the veteran will not be disadvantaged. I'm going to give you one example … where the veteran will be disadvantaged under this bill. Under the SRCA, if you go in for permanent impairment, it is condition by condition, and this has been backed up by case law … Under the MRCA they will treat [conditions] as one … If they move DRCA to the responsibility of Veterans' Affairs, there is language that says they want to align that with the provisions of MRCA, specifically around permanent impairment. I have sought clarification of the issue raised by Mr Larter, about how impairment will be assessed under the DRCA, from the minister's office. I thank his office for providing timely written advice, as follows: ADF members will not be disadvantaged when the DRCA is enacted. The DRCA replicates the SRCA (with some necessary amendments to make it clear the DRCA only applies to Defence-related claims), including all instruments and guides/determinations made under the SRCA, in force on the date the DRCA is enacted. This will include Comcare's Permanent Impairment Guide. ADF members who lodge claims for permanent impairment under the DRCA will continue to have their injuries/illnesses determined under Part 2 of the [Permanent Impairment Guide]. The existing case law that applies to the SRCA including the assessment of permanent incapacity will also apply under the DRCA. This means that for permanent incapacity the High Court decision in Canute will also apply to DRCA cases. The constant battle: suicide by veterans, a report I have previously referred to, provided a detailed and searing analysis of issues within Defence and DVA regarding the manner in which they deal with members and veterans. A common theme amongst the cavalcade of submissions dealt with inherent issues with the service delivery and processes and procedures of the administrative bodies designed to assist veterans and their families. The report raised concerns with DVA's administrative and staffing issues, delays in claim determinations, medical assessments by contracted practitioners, incorrect payments, communication issues and the adversarial approaches to litigation. Each issue was examined in detail by the committee, which made reasonable and sensible recommendations in light of the evidence given. I appeal to the government to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency to improve the culture, climate and capability of DVA. On the issue of the combative nature of the adversarial relationship of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with some veterans advocates, veterans advocacy groups and lawyers acting on behalf of veterans I make the following observations. The Constant battle report noted that DVA has acknowledged that less than 1.5 per cent of claims are disingenuous. I further note that the Attorney-General's legal services direction dated 29 March 2017 stipulates, under appendix B, the obligation on the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies to act as a model litigant in the conduct of litigation. Specifically, the obligation to act as a model litigant requires that the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation brought against them, including: dealing with claims promptly, paying legitimate claims without litigation, keeping the costs of litigation down and not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim. We know from Trooper Donaldson's public statements that his eight-year battle with Defence cost him $850,000 in legal fees. Donaldson's case was ultimately settled. We can only speculate that the Commonwealth's legal fees in that case could have run into the millions. Donaldson has stated publicly that the process for him was demoralising. Sadly, this is a familiar response from veterans I have dealt with. The department's own figures show that DVA spent $6.24 million on external litigation in 2013-14. I note that the DVA are yet to update their website with current figures for litigation costs from the 2015-16 annual report, which shows that it spent $8.16 million on external legal fees. The 2016-17 figures aren't yet available. I ask the department to address this immediately as they are required to do pursuant to the legal services direction. Given the paucity of claims that are disingenuous and the amount expended to fight genuine claims, I call on the government to change its approach to litigation pursuant to the legal services direction so that the vast majority of clients, in the words of the TPI Federation: … need not be put through the wringer to prove a case with very expensive medical reports and, at times, legal reports… The issue of the present situation of three different acts relating to the pensions, compensation, rehabilitation, treatment and other benefits for veterans, members of the Defence Force and their families will continue even with the passage of this bill. As noted, this has led to confusion and frustration, with appeals and claims being processed differently depending on which act applies. The Nick Xenophon Team acknowledges that the complexity of the current legislative framework was a key theme from the evidence received during the inquiry into suicide by veterans. The minister has indicated that, following the passage of the bill, the government will look to areas of potential alignment with the other acts in the future. The Nick Xenophon Team is cautious about the future alignment of legislation, and we urge the minister to clarify details of the proposed reforms to provide certainty to ADF members and veterans. However, the Nick Xenophon Team cautions the government that any attempt to address the current legislative complexities and possible consolidation of the legislative framework will not be supported by the Nick Xenophon Team if the result leaves any ADF members or veterans worse off. Legislative reform should never come at the expense of the brave men and women who currently serve and who have served valiantly in defence of our nation and the freedoms that we hold so dear. 18:21 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017, simply known as the DRCA, will fix the shortcomings of this bill that have not been replicated from the SRCA. The same functions which have been used by Comcare since 1998 with respect to the SRCA and which are currently binding upon the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission would be restored through this amendment. Those functions provide for minimising the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quick rehabilitation. This was noted in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's report, specifically in my additional comments, which concur in part and dissent in part to the committee's report. Those additional comments may serve as an explanatory memorandum to my amendment. Labor incorrectly believes that, with the inclusion of this clause, quick rehabilitation that now exists in the SRCA would cause a conflict between the different aims of rehabilitation, which could result in lesser protections for veterans. It believes that that provision has not been used since 2004. How legislating quick rehabilitation which now exists in the SRCA could lessen protections to veterans defies logical reasoning. This is a cop-out by the Labor Party. The expanded aim of rehabilitation which Labor relies upon is misplaced. Labor states that the aim of rehabilitation is to: … maximise the potential to restore a person who has an impairment, or an incapacity for service or work, as a result of an injury or disease to at least the same physical and psychological state, and at least the same social, vocational and educational status, as he or she had before the injury or disease. That means that a veteran's claim will be determined quickly. That is not my view. There is no provision in the DRCA bill which requires the arrangement of quick rehabilitation. It is a furphy. The failure to incorporate a provision for the arrangement of quick rehabilitation may cause delays in the arrangement of rehabilitation and serve to harm the veteran. One only needs to look at Minister Tehan's ministerial statement on veterans and their families. Turning to page 7, it shows that determinations on certain claims have gone from waiting 129 days under the MRCA and 112 days under the SRCA to 156 days under the MRCA and 148 days under the SRCA. That is unacceptable. Are veterans expected to have an increased wait for the arrangements of rehabilitation given the omission of the 'quick rehabilitation' language in the DRCA? In relation to the Henry VIII clause in the DRCA, my amendment drops it from the bill altogether. Without my amendment, this bill effectively handballs parliament's legislative function to that of the executive branch of the government. It gives a government unfettered power to make regulation modifying the operation of the act itself. That would be absolutely unprecedented in the history of Australian veterans entitlement law—absolutely unprecedented! Labor's reliance upon the High Court's decision in ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd v Goudappel [2014] HCA 18 to support a Henry VIII clause is absolutely misplaced. Section 121(b) in the DRCA regulation-making power provides that the regulations themselves may modify the operation of any part of the act itself. In the ADCO Constructions case, that regulation-making power was limited to making regulations not inconsistent with the act itself. Further, in the ADCO Constructions case, this limited Henry VIII clause was used for the purpose of providing a flexible means of making adjustments to the savings and transitional provisions of an act of parliament as noted by Justice Gageler. It is, therefore, different and should not under any circumstances be relied upon. The government's power grab in incorporating a Henry VIII clause comes on the heels of the recently tabled Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report entitled The constant battle: suicide by veterans, which noted concerns about the inadequacy of staff training and recommended a review of its training. The committee recommended a Productivity Commission study be completed within 18 months on Australia's veterans legislative framework. In the committee's support for such a review, it unanimously and in a rare bipartisan manner rejected the Department of Veterans' Affairs saying that there is no easy way to untangle the current legislative complexities. Rather, the committee concluded: It is time for a comprehensive rethink of how the current system operates and will operate into the future. Labor, in its response given by Richard Marles MP to the second reading speech in the House of Representatives, failed to consider the Senate FADT references committee report into veteran suicide and the systematic problems raised in the bipartisan report. Rather, it hopes, on a wing and a prayer, that the government's intention to just use it as a 'fail-safe' in case something has been overlooked in the process, which would have left a veteran worse off, will work. That's right—they're hoping on a wing and a prayer that a veteran may not be worse off. One only has to look to the 180-page Senate FADT references committee report on veteran suicide to draw the logical conclusion—although logic around here is in very short supply—that this government's intentions don't always match their actions. Besides the FADT references committee report into veteran suicide, the Australian National Audit Office has flagged a potential performance audit into the efficiency of veterans service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as part of its annual audit works for 2017-18. In fact, the FADT references committee recommended that such an audit by the ANAO start as soon as possible. The Senate signing off on granting the Department of Veterans' Affairs unfettered powers in a Henry VIII clause flies in the face of the FADT references committee report into veteran suicide. It gives more power to the institution when questions are being asked over how it is using its power. That's a mistake, and it's a mistake my amendment fixes. The committee's report lays bare a culture, a very deep culture, of systematic problems within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It lays bare how the legislation governing veterans affairs has been slapped together with blu tack and held together with bandaids. Slipping a Henry VIII clause into the DRCA under these conditions is such bad policy. It is very, very bad policy from an unprincipled government which takes veterans and their sacrifices for granted. This bill should be put on the shelf and await a Productivity Commission review, as requested by the committee in its bipartisan report into veterans affairs. Let me my remind my Senate colleagues of the following recommendations: Recommendation 1 The committee recommends, that in the context of recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare findings concerning veterans at risk of suicide, the Australian Government: • develop and implement specific suicide prevention programs targeted at those veterans identified in at-risk groups; and • expand the DVA Reconnects Project to proactively contact veterans in these identified at-risk groups. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission an independent study into the mental health impacts of compensation claim assessment processes on veterans engaging with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. The results of this research should be utilised to improve compensation claim processes. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a National Veteran Suicide Register to be maintained by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the enhancement of veteran-specific online training programs intended for mental health professionals. In particular: • requirements for providers to undertake training; • the introduction of incentives for undertaking online training and demonstrating outcomes in clinical practice. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs align arrangements for the provision of professional mental health care. Recommendation 6— Here it is— The committee recommends that the Australian Government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. In particular, this review should examine the utilisation of Statements of Principle in the determination of compensation claims. The report of this systemic review should be completed within 18 months and tabled in the Parliament. The question needs to be asked, and I will be asking it: why would you be doing any legislative changes right now? Why aren't you adopting these recommendations? This is what is going to make the difference—not coming in when we have put all these recommendations in, not adopting them, nearly three weeks after we tabled the report. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support the 'Veteran Centric Reform' program within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that, while the Veteran Centric Reform program is being implemented, the Australian Government continue to fund measures to: • alleviate pressure on claims processing staff and to reduce the backlog of claims; and • increase case coordination staff to assist clients with complex needs. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs conduct a review of its training program to ensure relevant staff: • have an understanding of the realities of military service— If you can get to that point you're starting off well— • have an understanding of health issues of veterans; • have appropriate communication skills— That would incorporate not blacklisting advocates and myself— to engage with clients with mental health conditions; and • have sufficient training to interpret medical assessment and reports— which, quite clearly, they do not. Recommendation 10 5.105 The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review its use of medico-legal firms— because it's taking out veterans— in relation to the assessment of the conditions of veterans. In particular, this review should confirm: • assessments undertaken are appropriate to the conditions considered— For those people who don't understand that, that means when you have PTSD and they want to send you to a doctor that's checking out your need, that's medicolegal and you probably shouldn't be there. They're the sort of mistakes that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continually makes—short-changing the veterans. • that the medical professionals used have undertaken training on treating veterans and can demonstrate their expertise working amongst this client group; and • the need for independent medical assessments where information is already available from the veteran's own doctor or treating specialist. You may want to start there, because nothing annoys a veteran more than, when they've had a treating specialist or GP for 10 years, you send them to a medico legal, and everything that doctor or specialist has been doing for them in the past is wiped out in a 15-minute appointment. There's no fairness in that. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends the Department of Veterans' Affairs expand its online engagement with younger veterans through social media to raise awareness regarding available support services. Maybe they should try using that, rather than trying to make them remove it off Facebook. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that the reference to the Productivity Commission should also include examination of the following areas in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio: governance arrangements; administrative processes; and service delivery. That in itself will keep you busy for a couple of years, I can assure you. You have a bit of cleaning up to do over there. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office commence the proposed performance audit of the 'Efficiency of veterans' service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs' as soon as possible. Nearly three weeks you've had these recommendations. You still haven't started any of this. What it goes to show me is you actually don't give a stuff about a veteran. All you're doing is talking the talk, but you'll be damned if you walk the walk. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends that Transition Taskforce examine and address: any gaps in medical services or income support for veterans in transition or immediately following transition; You might actually want to start there at the transition, let's be honest. Defence may want to make sure they're transitioned properly before you pass them to DVA. Here's a better idea: why don't you leave them on Defence's manning list and watch how quick they'll get the medical attention that they need. Get some of those commanders off their rear end, start standing up for their troops, start being real leaders in military, hey? Recommendation 15 The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs develop a two-track transition program for serving members leaving the ADF. Those identified as being in 'at risk' groups or requiring additional assistance due to their circumstances should be able to access intensive transition services. These intensive transition services should include additional support: claims case management; healthcare, mental health and wellbeing support; employment assistance programs; social connectedness programs; and health and wellbeing programs I know this is very strange for you people over there, but it's pretty easy: it's called early intervention. You know what? It will save billions of dollars over a period of time if you get onto these illnesses and help these men and women who have served their country a lot earlier, instead of using the 'delay, deny, die' method that Veterans' Affairs consistently uses. Recommendation 16 The committee recommends the Australian Government issue all ADF members transitioning into civilian life with a DVA White Card— No matter what condition they have. Recommendation 17 The committee recommends that the Career Transition Assistance Scheme include an option for veterans to undertake a period of work experience with an outside employer. Recommendation 18 The committee recommends that the Australian Public Service Commission conduct a review into mechanisms to further support veteran employment in the Australian Public Service and the public sector. It's shameful you don't even have a quota for that. You're not even serious, really, are you? Recommendation 19 The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review the support for partners of veterans to identify further avenues for assistance. This review should include services such as information and advice, counselling, peer support and options for family respite care to support partners of veterans— Because while you're destroying their lives, you're destroying the lives of their kids, their wives, their families and those around them. That's the impact. That's the result that Veterans' Affairs is dishing out to them. Recommendation 20 The committee recommends: the Australian Government expand the Veterans and Community Grants program to support the provision of alternative therapies to veterans with mental health conditions; and the Department of Veterans' Affairs consult with ex-service organisations and the veteran community regarding avenues to reform the Veterans and Community Grants program to support the provision of alternative therapies to veterans. Recommendation 21 The committee recommends the Australian Government fund a trial program that would provide assistance animals for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from their military service in order to gather research to support the eventual funding of animals for veterans— Quite frankly, you don't need a trial program: it's already proven; it's already working. Veterans' Affairs knows that—they just don't want to pay a little bit of extra money to make a veteran better. Whatever helps a veteran to get better, DVA will be right against it. That's what they do. Recommendation 22: The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide funding to support the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service: •create and maintain a public database of services available to veterans; and •provide an information service to assist veterans and families connect and access appropriate services provided by ex-service organisations and others. Recommendation 23: The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a Bureau of Veterans' Advocates to represent veterans, commission legal representation where required, train advocates for veterans and be responsible for advocate insurance issues. This was promised by the current PM. We're still waiting. Recommendation 24: The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an independent review of the representation of veterans before the Veterans' Review Board. This review should assess whether the rights of vulnerable veterans are being adequately protected and whether further support mechanisms for veterans appearing before the Veterans' Review Board are required. Now let's go back to recommendation 6, which is: The committee recommends that the Australian Government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. In particular, this review should examine the utilisation of Statements of Principle … So I ask once again: why would this chamber, less than a month after the references committee made that recommendation—the government has yet to issue a formal response—vote to enact new veterans legislation without any regard to a Productivity Commission report or review? This does not make any sense to me and the veterans community at large. It puts another bandaid on veterans legislation without waiting for a systematic review of it. If this government is so hell-bent on pushing this bill through, then my amendments to DRCA are reasonable and protect veterans in what has been a chaotic legislative framework year in, year out. Quite frankly, I can assure you: the veterans, their community, their families and their friends have had an absolute gutful. (Time expired) 18:41 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I had hoped to hear from Senator Bernardi and Senator Burston in this second reading debate, but, absent of their contributions, taking time at the moment might allow them to get to the chamber if they've been delayed. I wanted to follow Senator Lambie's contribution by focusing on a couple of areas in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017. I think Senator Farrell, in the second reading contribution on behalf of the Labor Party, has covered the breadth of the provisions in the bill. But, particularly following Senator Lambie, I think it is helpful to revisit a couple of areas. I am concerned to hear Senator Lambie highlight issues such as having been blacklisted as an advocate, because I think the contribution that she makes to this parliament for veterans is significant, very useful and helpful, and we should continue to listen to her experience, her advice and her advocacy. I understand what she said in terms of frustration with the process, the outcome and the intention of the amendments she is proposing. Unfortunately, I haven't been as intimately involved in the parliament's consideration of these issues to be able to reflect on the assurances that the government may have provided in relation to a range of concerns raised by both her and the Labor Party in terms of how these provisions might be applied. But I do understand her frustration with intention not necessarily equalling action in implementing provisions around veterans and, indeed, her frustrations, as with many, with attempts to modernise an enormous bureaucracy in terms of how it treats our veterans with the respect that they deserve. I experienced that myself with my father's time as a veteran after many years of service in the Australian Air Force. In Senator Lambie's case, I think she gives us all a very refreshing example of how the provision of veterans affairs hasn't necessarily been modernised to the extent that it should be. It's a very important reminder for all of us. I know that Senator Farrell will be here to deal with Labor's position on Senator Lambie's amendments, but there are other elements of this bill that I wanted to highlight. I started looking at this when I was listening to Senator Kakoschke-Moore talking about the MRCA, the SRCA, the DRCA and how people can even be lost in the acronyms of it all! I think it's helpful to remind us that this legislation proposes to remove all the Defence Force elements from the SRCA and create an exact replica called the DRCA, which will apply only to Defence Force members. There can be some advantages and disadvantages of that. This is why I think the Senate committee took the time to ensure that things weren't inadvertently overlooked from the existing arrangements. From work I've done over many years in other occupational rehabilitation areas, I can give credence to Senator Lambie's point about ensuring timely rehabilitation. If that's an area where veterans affairs is still well behind the game, that's quite concerning to hear. I would hope that, through this parliamentary discussion, and through her continued advocacy as well, the Department of Veterans' Affairs will continue to be held to account to lift its game in that area. Any suggestion that our veterans are not receiving the timely rehabilitation that is necessary to help them return to the best health possible is, I think, as Senator Lambie said quite passionately, just not good enough. There is the general hope that consolidating the management of these areas to apply only to Defence Force members will assist that process. In reading about this bill, I think the creation of this act to bring all legislation relating to veterans affairs under the responsibilities of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is a good one. Obviously how effectively that occurs might depend on who the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is at the time, and I think Senator Lambie and I would both agree that as much pressure as possible should be put on the Prime Minister of the day not only to meet what commitments the government have previously made but to ensure that the person with responsibility for veterans affairs meets the rest of the criteria you were referring to, Senator Lambie, from the report—that the minister is capable of having an understanding of the circumstances around veterans and is capable of ensuring, with some passion and dedication, that the standards that apply to their circumstances are the best that they possibly can be. I was concerned to see that, to date, some of these areas have been mixed between the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. We only need to look at the types of debates we saw today and yesterday about what was, once upon a time, a bipartisan agreement that enterprise bargaining was a good thing for our country, for industrial arrangements into the future and for ongoing productivity. That's now a contest for partisan debate. I would hate to see the culture that's developed in employment policy, particularly workplace relations type policy, infect the policy discussion about veterans affairs. I would hate to see our political milieu deteriorate into veterans becoming the same fodder as we have seen in the discussions about employees and the role of unions in contemporary Australian society, because that could only make things worse. I see some advantages, obviously, of consolidating all of the arrangements to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and keeping it away from that policy space, but I would like to take this opportunity to revisit Senator Lambie's focus on the importance of early intervention in rehabilitation. It's too easy, in a land where we're dealing with legislation with complex acronyms and the like, to forget the fundamental principle: we know that in rehabilitation, occupational rehabilitation particularly, early intervention is the most significant factor. If you can't intervene early, if you allow bureaucracy and rules and classifications and egos and defence hierarchy and all of that to contaminate that fundamental principle of early intervention, then Senator Lambie's quite right to highlight—and, indeed, very passionate in doing so—that it's the dignity of our veterans that we are compromising. I know some of these issues have been discussed amongst the committee and between the minister and the shadow minister, and I hope assurances in relation to those issues have reached a satisfactory point. But I don't think it hurts for someone other than Senator Lambie to say that, if our arrangements aren't meeting that fundamental criterion of early intervention in the rehabilitation of our veterans, we are compromising the dignity of our veterans. Senator Lambie says that she's concerned that we're relying on a wing and a prayer, that that fail-safe isn't here, and refers to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into veterans' suicide. Senator Lambie highlighted that that committee recommended a review by the Productivity Commission. Now, I wonder sometimes whether the Productivity Commission is necessarily the most appropriate body to conduct such reviews. I do understand Senator Lambie's concern that a review per se hasn't occurred, before proceeding with this consolidation. My confidence in a review like that being conducted by the Productivity Commission is a bit mixed. They've done some good work—for instance, in relation to paid parental leave. That report challenged my preconceptions about the quality of a report that the Productivity Commission could produce. But, whether today they are now in the best position to pick up the concerns that Senator Lambie and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee had, I think, is an open question. I would hope, absent the Productivity Commission, that the government had indeed addressed in some detail the recommendations of the references committee report because all of those issues that Senator Lambie raises have merit and need to be addressed. At the end of the day, she may not be satisfied with precisely how those issues have been addressed—and I'm sure, in the committee stage, Senator Farrell will discuss her particular amendment. I don't think it harms this consideration to highlight that her point about early intervention and timely rehabilitation is a fundamental principle that we in this parliament, on a bipartisan basis, should be guaranteeing, for the dignity of our veterans. 18:53 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'd like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for the veterans community demonstrated by the opposition, the Greens, the crossbench and, indeed, the entire Senate. The purpose of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 is to excise compensation coverage for Australian Defence Force members and former members with service prior to 1 July 2004 from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, commonly called SRCA, and duplicate that coverage under a standalone act. The SRCA currently provides compensation to all Commonwealth employees and is administered by Comcare on behalf of the Department of Employment. It also covers Australian Defence Force members and former members for injuries and disease related to service rendered prior to 1 July 2004, as administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Military members with injuries or disease related to service on or after 1 July 2004 onwards have coverage under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, commonly known as MRCA. The main benefit in excising the coverage of Defence Force members from the SRCA into a standalone act, to be titled the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, or DRCA, is that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will have responsibility for all compensation acts covering Defence Force members. This bill simply replicates SRCA. Eligibility and benefits under the act will be the same as those currently available to current and former ADF members under the existing SRCA. This means that all precedents and case law relating to this act will continue. The enactment of the DRCA is also a foundational step towards broader reform being undertaken by the department to significantly improve services for veterans and their families. In keeping with the aims of this reform activity, it is essential that responsibility for all relevant legislation and policy sits with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The enactment provisions have been carefully drafted to ensure that eligibility and benefits under the DRCA will be the same as those that were available to serving and former Defence Force members under the SRCA at the time the injury or illness was sustained. This has been further reinforced by the inclusion of a Henry VIII clause, which will act as a safety net for unintended consequences of the creation of the standalone act. Most importantly, it can only be used to the benefit of the veteran and never to benefit the Commonwealth. On behalf of the minister, I would like to thank the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for their work on the inquiry into this bill. In particular, I would like to thank their former chair, Dr Chris Back, and the deputy chair, Senator Alex Gallacher. The committee have recommended that the Senate pass the bill. I would like to acknowledge the contributions to the debate on this bill made by senators today. While we note the concerns of some senators about the use of a Henry VIII clause, this clause, as we have mentioned, is purely a safety net and can never be used to benefit the Commonwealth. The government also notes the concern of some senators to have a review of the use of the Henry VIII regulations under the DRCA. While this, hopefully, will never be used, the government and the department have undertaken to place in each instrument created by the Henry VIII clause a requirement for a review to be conducted by parliament. This will allow the review to be tailored to the regulation that is being made, as well as allowing the benefits to flow to affected veterans while the review is conducted. Additionally, the government noted the suggestions of some senators to introduce aspirations into the bill. However, as we have suggested, the changing nature and complexity of rehabilitation of individuals does not lend itself to rigid legislation. The department must be able to meet individual needs to provide for all veterans and their families. I would also particularly like to thank the shadow minister for her cooperation in developing the bill. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 6589 18:58 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8100 revised together: (1) Schedule 1, page 14 (before line 3), before item 46, insert: 45A Section 140 Omit: (b) of managing the provision of compensation and rehabilitation provided as a result of the making of claims of that kind. substitute: (b) of managing the provision of compensation and rehabilitation provided as a result of the making of claims of that kind; and (c) of minimising the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for rehabilitation. (2) Schedule 1, items 47 and 48, page 14 (lines 6 to 9), omit the items, substitute: 47 Paragraphs 142(1)(c) and (d) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (c) minimising the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for the rehabilitation of those employees under this Act. These amendments would minimise the duration and severity of injuries to veterans by arranging quickly for rehabilitation. This provision exists in the current Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, known as the SRCA, but was omitted in this bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation (Defence Force) Bill 2017, known as the DRCA. There has been much confusion about the provision for quickly arranging rehabilitation, as the government believed this was simply a function of Comcare and not of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the MRCC. It therefore mistakenly concluded that the provision never applied to veterans. But the current SRCA requires the MRCC, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, to function as if: (d) doing anything the doing of which: … … … (ii) would be required of Comcare if Comcare had responsibility for the performance of that function. That is found in the SRCA, section 142, subsection (1)(d)(ii). Thus, since 1998, having rehabilitation arranged quickly has been a benefit a veteran is able to receive under today's SRCA, as the MRCC has to function as if it were Comcare. DRCA omits arranging quickly for rehabilitation. Nowhere is this language found in the bill. The Labor Party wrongly believes the quick rehabilitation provision has not been used since 2004, when the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 came into effect on 1 July 2004. That belief does not take into account injuries and diseases that are traced back to Defence Force service during the period of coverage of SRCA and prior to the enactment of MRCA. An example would be where symptoms of a disease or injury manifest at a much later date. In those instances, when a veteran's claim is made years later under SRCA—or DRCA, if passed—and they require rehabilitation, their rehab should be arranged quickly. The government, from day one of the introduction of DRCA, has stated repeatedly that this is just a replication of SRCA into DRCA. That is rubbish! That is not the case. My amendment keeps the government honest in arranging for quick rehabilitation within DRCA. Just like the Henry VIII clause, apparently, it's a safety net—how about that! Recently, the government conceded that, on average, veterans have had an increase in waiting times for determinations in certain SRCA claims from 112 days to 148 days. With such a significant increase in determination times, it would be prudent for the Senate to keep in a provision for quickly arranging rehabilitation. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 doesn't include provisions to arrange quick rehabilitation for veterans, so I'd like to know: what guarantees can the government give that veterans rehabilitation will be arranged quickly? 19:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The government will not be supporting the amendments that have been moved by Senator Lambie. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Senator Farrell, a point of order? Senator Farrell I0N Senator Lambie has asked a question to which I expect she's expecting a reply and not the government's response to the amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 I don't think there's a point of order there. Senator McGRATH 217241 I was going to say that this is because the government's position is that the bill we are dealing with here at the moment, the DRCA, is an exact copy, effectively, of the SRCA and the same conditions and precedents that applied to the SRCA in terms of the treatment of veterans will continue under the DRCA. 19:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania If quick rehabilitation not only benefits the veteran but also has social and economic benefits for society as a whole, why won't the government codify in legislation the arrangement of quick rehabilitation? Surely, since we're all arguing about it, it would be better to be safe than sorry and make sure my amendment goes through, since you have such grave concern for our veterans. 19:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I am unsure in terms of what point you are making there, Senator Lambie, and in terms of how I can answer the question that you have just put. 19:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I am simply asking because you don't sound very sure about the legislation—you've obviously got no clue about it. I would suggest you take my amendment and use it. 19:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The committee is certainly in no doubt as to your competency and knowledge in this area but, as I started to state before, the government does not accept that your amendments will improve the operation of the act. 19:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Senator Lambie has moved the two amendments on sheet 8100. The first relates to schedule 1 and aims to insert item 45A section 140, and the second amendment relates again to schedule 1, but involves a substitution with item 47 paragraphs 142(1 )(c) and (d). The opposition regrettably will not be supporting the amendments, as we believe at this point in time, with our knowledge of the legislation, that they are unnecessary and in fact could lessen the protections for veterans in the DRCA. Amanda Rishworth in the lower house has been extensively involved in all of the discussions in this area. She is the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and has been actively and conscientiously working with the government to get this legislation right. She is a very dedicated member of parliament and has spent a lot of time and effort on this piece of legislation. The DRCA is designed to separate Defence Force members from other Commonwealth employees, who are covered by the SRCA. The principles which these amendments seek to insert currently sit within section 69 of the SRCA and have not applied to Defence Force members since 2004. Rather than being required to only minimise the duration and severity of injuries to employees by arranging quickly for rehabilitation, Defence Force members have been covered under an expanded aim of rehabilitation which states that the intention is to 'maximise the potential to restore a person who has an impairment, or an incapacity for service or work, as a result of a service injury or disease to at least the same physical and psychological state, and at least the same social, vocational and educational status, as he or she had before the injury or disease'. This definition, combined with section 142, which calls for claims to be determined accurately and quickly, means that the principles of determining claims quickly and restoring individuals to the same social, vocational and educational status, as applied to Defence Force members in the SRCA, is upheld in the DRCA. We have been informed that this amendment would result in a conflict of definition between the two principles of rehabilitation—one that offers a broader range of support and one that hasn't been used since 2004. The provisions in the DRCA that have been applied in the SRCA since 2004 provide a stronger commitment to Defence Force members than the inclusion of part C of the amendment. Labor believes that this amendment could lessen the protections for veterans in the DRCA. While we will not be supporting the amendment, we do understand the confusion, given that the government response to the Senate inquiry failed to clearly articulate that the rehabilitation principles in section 69 have not been utilised for the Defence Force members since 2004. Labor pursued these concerns extensively with the government and the department—and I have some questions I'd like to ask the acting minister in a moment—and, to be perfectly honest, found it hard to get a clear explanation. I hope in the answers to the questions I'm going to ask shortly we get some clarity about those issues. It has taken a considerable amount of research into and examination of this legislation to understand the implications clearly on both the current operations of the SRCA for Defence Force members and the impact of this amendment. We believe that the inclusion of this clause in the DRCA would see two different aims of rehabilitation, which has the potential to cause a conflict and could result in lessening the protections for veterans. As such, Labor will not be supporting the amendment. 19:11 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to go back to recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Australian Government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to simplify the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation for service members and veterans. I want to know, firstly, why you haven't put that recommendation through and whether you have any intention of putting that through, and, secondly, if you do, why we are in here now spending time on amending legislation requirements that involve veterans in the acts. Right now you have the VEA, the SRCA, the MRCA, the DRCA and ComSuper. You are supposed to be streamlining processes. You've just added another one, and we now have five. Please, can you explain to me what pig-headedness would possibly make any changes right now without carrying out this recommendation? Why would you not let the Productivity Commission go in there and do the job which we can quite clearly see both sides of parliament have made a mess of, year in, year out, and can no longer clean up? They have lost the plot. 19:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Thank you, Senator Lambie. I'm advised that, without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified, so passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review to be undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation. 19:13 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania That's absolute rubbish and you know it is. That is just a bloody palm-off. I tell you now: explain to me step by step exactly how that works. This will be good. 19:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Could you expand on what you mean by 'step by step', please? 19:14 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to know what is stopping the Productivity Commission from going in there, doing its job and then feeding back up to us what needs to be done? You tell me why the Veterans' Affairs minister needs to say yes or no to that. 19:14 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I want to reiterate two things. One is that it's the government's strong view that it will assist the simplification of the matters if all legislation falls within the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' remit. In relation to a response to the recommendations that have been made by the committee, the government has 90 days in which to respond, and, if I'm correct, we've only had them for a couple of weeks. 19:15 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Just so we're all clear, this morning in Tasmania there was a veteran who had just come out of a coma. He got out of the service in 2012 and spent five years fighting the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We're very grateful that, today, he's finally come out of his coma from trying to take his own life. And you want 90 more days? You stand at a cenotaph like you give a stuff about these veterans. We're all talking about time lines here, and you're sitting in here talking some crap about how you want 90 days. Do you know what this committee had to go through—the harrowing stories that we had to hear to come out with these 24 recommendations? And you want to talk about 90 days. I simply want to know why you are bothering with changing legislation before the Productivity Commission can get in there and show what they can do to simplify the legislative framework. The minister does not need to give permission for that. All you need to do is clear that recommendation through. 19:16 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I should note that the inquiry took over 12 months, and the government is well aware of the considerable work that went into the inquiry. We believe that the inquiry deserves a considered response, and we will be giving the recommendations and the report of the inquiry a considered response. 19:16 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We can go into the time because this is what's taking out veterans, yet you still want your 90 days. But I would like you to answer the question. We simply want the Productivity Commission to go inside the Department of Veterans' Affairs, put all of the acts together and make them into one. That is what we are asking. Why does the minister need to approve or not approve that? It's a pretty simple step. I'm simply asking you: why are we making these changes that simply do not need to be made until all of these recommendations have been dealt with, especially the Productivity Commission one? Let them go in there and do their job. It's like you're shafting them and saying, 'They're not going to get the job done, so we're going to lambaste you with legislation anyway.' That does not need the minister's approval. That recommendation needs approval, and there's no reason why you couldn't have done that two weeks ago. So why does the minister need to give his approval for this? Why do we need to put through this amendment? Why do we need to put this through when, quite clearly, putting the Productivity Commission into action to streamline those acts does not need approval from the minister? 19:18 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified. Passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation. 19:18 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Why can't the minister do that? That's the question I'm asking. Explain to me and the veterans out there, right now, why the minister can't do that. 19:18 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I answered that question with my previous answer. 19:18 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania So you're simply telling me that the Productivity Commission cannot go inside there and simplify the legislative framework without the minister saying so and without putting the DRCA through? Do you need the DRCA to be able to give the minister permission—which he can do; let's be honest here—to go in there and get the Productivity Commission to bring all those acts together? 19:19 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland As I said before, without the Minister for Veterans' Affairs having responsibility for all military compensation law, the various pieces of legislation can't be simplified. Passing the DRCA will assist and enable any review undertaken by the Productivity Commission into veterans legislation. 19:19 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Okay. It seems you're not going to. I imagine that's going to mean a blowback for you boys tomorrow. In recommendation 13 the committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office commence a proposed performance audit of the efficiency of veteran service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as soon as possible. Are you going to tell me the DRCA's stopping the National Audit Office from going in there to do that too? Is that what you're telling me? Without the DRCA, can the National Audit Office not go in and do that either? Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 6594 ADJOURNMENT Anthoney, Miss Dainere Monique, R U OK? Day 6594 19:20 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Dainere Anthoney was a very special young lady. Earlier today I was pleased to have the opportunity to launch Dainere's 'rainbow' bus outside Parliament House. I have spoken in this House before about Dainere's story and the amazing work her family have done to continue her legacy and to bring some hope and progress in the wake of her tragic passing four years ago. I am grateful that today's bus launch gives me the opportunity to once again share her story and highlight the need for more brain tumour research. Dainere Anthoney was a bright young girl who lived her whole life in Canberra. In 2009, she was diagnosed with high-risk medulloblastoma. I was fortunate to meet Dainere not long after her diagnosis in 2010 at the launch of her book You Have to Go Through a Storm to Get to a Rainbow. While high-dose radiation and chemotherapy helped her for a brief time, in February 2012 she suffered an inoperable and incurable recurrence of the disease in her spine, with palliative care the only option. On 24 June 2013, Dainere passed away at the age of 15. Dainere's family decided to honour her by creating the Dainere's Rainbow Brain Tumour Research Fund, which assists the research team led by Dr David Ziegler, Dainere's oncologist, in their work to improve treatment and to find a cure for this shocking disease. Their research is vital because each year more than 950 children and adolescents are diagnosed with brain cancer. The sad truth is that no significant improvement has been made in survival rates in almost three decades. Dainere's bus is a Qcity Transit bus that will have her foundation's design and branding for the next five years, a very generous donation from Qcity buses. The bus will do regular routes in Queanbeyan and Canberra, spreading awareness of Dainere's foundation. The bus has been launched in September, commemorating Go Gold month, which also helps to raise awareness of brain tumours in young people and the need for more research. I would encourage everyone to wear a gold ribbon or share Dainere's story on social media to encourage this great cause. Before I finish, I would also like to take a moment to thank John Mikita for all the work he does for Dainere's foundation and Steve Bushby and Qcity buses for their generous support for the foundation, as well as the other businesses that have jumped on board to help out, specifically Screenmakers Pty Ltd and TransitGraphics. Finally I would like to acknowledge Dainere's family—her parents, Stephen and Yvonne, her brother, Jarrett, and her sister, Nalani, for their tireless work in continuing her legacy. Last week I had the privilege of supporting another great cause—and that was R U OK? Day—by attending an afternoon tea as part of the R U OK? conversation convoy which has been traversing Australia in the lead-up to R U OK? Day next week. The afternoon tea was generously hosted by His Excellency Sir Peter Cosgrove and Lady Cosgrove, at Government House. To have it take place in such an illustrious setting shows the success R U OK? Day has had in quite literally changing the conversation around suicide. It also of course goes to the great work that our Governor-General and Lady Cosgrove do for so many organisations. It is likely that every single one of us in this place has been affected in one way or another by suicide and mental illness in our lives and the lives of those close to us. In so many of those situations, how often were we not even aware that a family member or friend was doing it tough? It is that silence about mental health that R U OK? Day seeks to directly address. It is a day when we can look out for each other and ask that simple question: are you okay? Sometimes when someone is struggling they just need a friend, a family member, a work colleague—anyone—to notice them and listen to them. I have been grateful to work with R U OK's CEO, Brendon Maher, over the years on events and initiatives that help get the message out even further than it already has. I want to acknowledge other members of the R U OK Day board, who have worked so hard on this worthy cause, including Michael Connaghan, Graeme Cowan, Barry Du Bois, Kathryn Howard, Jack Singleton, Mark Soulos, Helen Christensen, David Liddiard, Janina Nearn and, last but not least, Aya Larkin and the entire Larkin family, for their dedication to helping others and making sure that Gavin's legacy was strong and had a positive impact in our community. So next week, on 14 September, I would encourage everyone here, anyone listening and anyone reading Hansard to take part in R U OK Day, not only by helping raise awareness about the day and about breaking the silence on mental health but also by being a good friend, neighbour, member of the community and colleague, and ask those around you if they are okay. As part of my duties as Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, I have the great opportunity to visit and meet with a whole range of diverse communities around Australia and to take part in some of their important celebrations. One of those unique opportunities took place on 12 August, when I was invited to be a guest at the St Alexander Nevsky Russian School debutante ball in Sydney. The school, in Homebush in Sydney, is the largest Russian school in Australia, with 185 students and 25 teachers. The school was founded in 1971 and teaches students from pre-kindergarten through to year 10, who attend their ordinary school during the week and take classes in the St Alexander Nevsky Russian School on Saturdays. Since 1973, the New South Wales government have supported the school through their use of the premises of Homebush Public School. The school is focused on maintaining their Russian traditions and Orthodox faith through teaching the Russian language and history, studying the fundamentals of Orthodox scripture and teaching Russian singing, dancing and art classes. The debutante ball is the school's main fundraiser and community event, and it's a chance for the students who are soon to move on from the school to be presented to the Russian-Australian community and to celebrate their impending entry into adulthood. It is also a great chance for the students to honour their heritage, their families and their community and to celebrate their place in Australia as one of the great multicultural societies in the world. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the debutantes. I won't name them all, but I would say that they were outstanding in the way they presented themselves and the way they represented their school and their community. The dancing was extraordinary. They were just amazing young people. Debutante balls are one of those older traditions, of course, but this is something that is very important to this community, something they have done over many years, and it was certainly wonderful to join with them in that. I was joined by Russian ambassador to Australia, and also my predecessor as multicultural affairs minister and local member, Craig Laundy, and a couple of our good local New South Wales representatives in Victor Dominello and John Sidoti. I would like to take the opportunity to thank head teacher Galina Harrison and president of the parents' committee, Nicholas Maksymow, for the work they do at the school. I was really taken by their commitment to the school and the great commitment that so many people put in. This Russian school is one of many of these language schools that we have right around the country. They are so often staffed by volunteers, people who want to keep that connection to the country of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents. I think it's a wonderful thing. It is one of the things that make Australia the great multicultural nation that it is, that people can come to Australia and feel very much that they are part of Australia. They can integrate into Australia, but they can also hold onto the language and culture from where they have come and from where their ancestors have come. I congratulate all involved in the event and thank them very much for the great hospitality that was shown to me. HIV-AIDS 6596 19:29 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise to speak on the fact that we are at a critical moment in our collective response to the HIV epidemic in Australia. During the 1980s, as many would remember, Australia was leading the world in containing HIV. But, 30 years later, our nation has arrived at a fundamental inflection point, as Bill Paterson from the National Association of People with HIV Australia called it, where we have the opportunity to once again lead the world in treating HIV and ending its transmission. The tool to help us become leaders lies in a key report that was recently presented to the Parliamentary Liaison Group on HIV/AIDS, Blood Borne Viruses and Sexually Transmitted Diseases—a group that I have the honour of deputy chairing with our chair, Senator Dean Smith. I'd like to acknowledge the ongoing and tireless work that Senator Dean Smith does in this space of addressing the issues of HIV/AIDS in Australia. Last month, AFAO, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, launched its HIV blueprint, while just yesterday ViiV Healthcare Australia launched its white paper on critical steps towards addressing HIV in Australia. According to Michael Grant from ViiV Australia, Australia has the potential to fully address the impact of the virus on people living with HIV and a realistic opportunity to be the first among nations to virtually end transmission. It is so important and so critical for us to be a leader. I am so wanting Australia to step up to the mark and do this, like we did in the 1980s, because many of the same barriers that fuelled the epidemic over the past 30 years are still in existence today. These barriers must be broken down to properly tackle this disease. There are solutions, but they require us to focus on key affected populations and build evermore robust partnerships between policymakers and the people on the frontline. These include critical researchers like Professor Darryl O'Donnell and his team from the AFAO; our inspirational leaders like Dr Fraser Drummond, the medical director of ViiV Healthcare Australia, who started caring for HIV patients in 1996; people like Brent Allan, of Living Positive Victoria, who has lived with HIV for 18 years and is an incredible advocate for dealing with HIV; people like Bill Paterson, from the National Association of People with HIV Australia, who developed the inpatient AIDS unit at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney; and also people like Associate Professor Mark Bloch, president-elect of the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine. All of these people are inspirational leaders, who spoke yesterday at ViiV Healthcare's event here in Parliament House on the issues of HIV in launching ViiV Healthcare's report, which I really see as a tool for Australia to be a leader if we are going to end this disease. The solutions, unfortunately, took a recent hit when the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee deferred its decision on a possible listing on the PBS of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or what we all know as PrEP. This leaves the cost of treatment as the unresolved issue in the path to list PrEP on the PBS. PrEP is widely considered a game changer, with the potential to end new HIV transmissions. Indeed, the AFAO believes it will be integral to reaching the goal of no new HIV cases by 2020. When we talk about goals, we have to remember that, if we are really going to meet these kinds of goals, we have to better understand and support the needs of people living with HIV and support Australia in hopefully surpassing the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals—that is, 90 per cent of people with HIV will be diagnosed, 90 per cent of those diagnosed will be on antiretroviral therapy, and 90 per cent of those on ART will have an undetected viral load. This is an opportunity for Australia to lead and surpass those UN goals. However, even though PrEP is widely considered a game changer, the PBAC found that PrEP 'appeared to be effective in reducing the transmission of HIV but, unfortunately, access to this treatment is determined by access to state and territory trial programs leaving some outside the trial location'—like my home state of Tasmania—which means people are locked out of accessing the drug. The federal government, I believe, must step up and make sure that Australians who need this treatment have access to it. PrEP is the game changer. It is going to make Australia the world leader that we once were in the 1980s, and lead to the end of HIV transmission. But we need it to be available to everyone throughout the country. Circumstances like this make it all the more important that we in this place remain united in our support for those who are working to reduce the prevalence of HIV AIDS and assist the development of the eighth national HIV strategy, and work towards that zero transmission by 2020. The work that ViiV Healthcare Australia have done in their report will be a key contribution to that eighth national HIV strategy, because their report findings say it all. They made 10 recommendations to address findings in five key areas: testing, treatment, stigma and discrimination, biomedical prevention and the importance of partnership. As Michael Grant pointed out yesterday, stigma and discrimination is a key factor touching most aspects of the HIV challenge. ViiV's research found that this still continues to be, after all of these years—30 years—the major issue for people living with HIV or at risk of HIV. It stops or delays those people from seeking diagnosis and from seeking treatment and ongoing care. We have to end this stigma and this discrimination against people with HIV. Why? Because people still fear judgement. Over three-quarters of those surveyed by ViiV said they felt they had to hide their HIV status at least some of the time. Stigma combined with a lack of knowledge can lead to late diagnoses, which increases the risk of poorer health outcomes and onward transmission. To put that into perspective, in 2015 29 per cent of people acquiring HIV were diagnosed late. This report highlights the need for equitable access to diagnosis, treatment and care, and focuses on the remaining unintended and, in some cases, systematic barriers to treatment and care, such as lack of health literacy, disparity between the states and territories, Medicare ineligibility, and a lack of access to specialised care. These reports, both the AFAO blueprint and ViiV Healthcare's report have come at such an important time, as the federal government commences its consultation around Australia's eighth national HIV strategy. Successive governments have provided bipartisan support for people at risk of or living with HIV, and a standalone, nationally coordinated and collaborative approach to the response must be this parliament's priority. This is above politics. Labor is unstinting in our support to end the transmission of HIV AIDS and the discrimination that diagnosis can bring. In 2015, we amended our national platform to acknowledge the importance of renewing efforts to reduce the spread of HIV AIDS. When it comes to prophylaxis treatments like PrEP, Labor is committed to cooperation. In March, Labor wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to negotiate a way forward, and offering our bipartisan support on a range of measures to ensure those at risk of contracting HIV have access to the protection this drug affords. The capacity to end HIV transmission is within our reach, and Australia will lead the world in ending HIV transmission. That is my hope. (Time expired) National Disability Insurance Scheme 6598 19:39 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia There was multiparty support for the NDIS legislation when it went through this place and for the ongoing work of the NDIS, and in fact there continues to be. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be scrutinising the NDIS and calling out problems when we see them. Tonight I am going to read out some accounts from people with disability who have tried to access the NDIS or, in fact, are accessing the NDIS, and also some accounts from carers who have been trying to access the NDIS or have been having difficulty making their plans work. I'm doing this because there are a lot of frustrated people out there who feel voiceless and who have asked that attention be brought to the fact that there are problems and that people are, I think it is fair to say, feeling traumatised. I should note that, given people's depths of feeling, there were some unparliamentarily words, which I will omit. The first person states: I've just gotten off the phone from NDIA, and I'm fuming. We have basically been told that the whole time our funding has been in place, since 2015, our plan has been incorrect and showing the incorrect amount of funding. We have a current plan that covers eight months and shows around one-fifth of the original balances. When I questioned why no-one has ever notified us of this fact, I was told that, because of their high workload, sometimes these things get missed along the way. Also, there has been very little case notes logged against my son's files to reflect the amount of time and the questions we have asked surrounding his plan and the budget. My son is 13 and severely autistic, with severe developmental delays, and is non-verbal and fully incontinent. Yet it is expected that, because of his age, he can be left to his own devices for a period of time should I wish to return to work et cetera. Excuse me—I've had enough. Who do I contact in— a state— regarding a complaint and taking this further? This treatment is disgusting and the woman from the NDIA who kept cutting me off mid-sentence needs a wake-up call. Another person says: I just got phoned up saying I didn't get NDIS. I have PTSD, bi-polar, bulimia, and cut and other things. I just don't know what to do. My helper says they shut down soon so there will be no-one to help me anymore. I am just too tired to keep going. I hate NDIS. I was so happy when I got told I could get more help, and was going to go to tech and everything, get away from home and stop being hurt all the time. The next one relates to a gentleman caring for his wife, who was diagnosed with younger onset dementia at the age of 55. His wife required a power bed to ensure that she was able to be provided with care in her home, and they submitted an application for this bed through SWEP in November last year. A hospital provided the hire of a bed for three months, but, despite the application being placed on the urgent list, they received a power bed through this program only recently, in August 2017. So they've only just got the bed, even though they applied a while ago. The gentleman involved has had to pay the cost of the hire bed, which has amounted to over a thousand dollars since the start of the year, and that was after being provided with different information on several occasions. He has been informed that his wife's NDIS plan covers only the purchase of a bed, not the hire of a bed. As my editorial, what was he supposed to do when he needed this particular bed and there was a significant delay in getting a purchased bed? Throughout this process, this gentleman's wife's support coordinator made several attempts to liaise with the organisation that provided the hire bed in order to have invoices sent directly to the NDIS and not to him, but these requests and instructions were ignored. Then he got phoned by the company, threatening to come to the property to remove the bed if he did not pay. This was obviously distressing and confronting, and without the power bed he would not be able to provide care for his wife in his home. He subsequently paid the invoices. The gentleman concerned has conveyed great concern surrounding the NDIS including the NDIS plan lacking visibility in relation to details of funding allocation; being told that the allocated budget was approved to fund a purchase of a bed but not the hire of a bed; a general experience of receiving mixed messages from NDIS representatives when seeking clarification on matters relating to the plan; taking invoices into an office to claim for reimbursement—reimbursement will be provided but isn't in fact provided; and the apparent of lack of flexibility on use of funds in a plan, despite the plan stating that 'funds in your core support budget are flexible, which means that you can choose how to spend this funding to meet your needs'. Instead, he can't choose to hire a desperately-needed bed; he has to purchase a bed—failure to provide choice and control. Isn't that the very basis, we are told, of the NDIS? His final concern: the failure to ensure that his wife isn't any worse off for participating in the NDIS. The next account: I just want to say that today I did a pie chart of the things in my life and how much I spend doing each thing. And it made me very angry that there was a category called NDIS - and it took as much up of my pie chart as did the time I spend on appointments and everyday tasks (the 3 biggest things I spend the most time acting on or thinking about things I have to do). I spend less time accessing the community, spending time with friends and family than I do with actually dealing with NDIS issues. This is so counterproductive of that the scheme is supposed to be doing! The NDIS should not be affecting my life like this. I cannot go a day without all my issues with the NDIS that are constantly not being resolved going through my head taking up space. I could actually be using this time and space to be building my life. Instead I'm spending the time trying to fight for the right to build my life. It should not be this way! I concur. For the next account there is a rather long explanation of the problems that this person has been going through with the NDIS. I don't have time to go all the way through it so I'll read out part of it. Where on earth do we go to from here?! I am just completely broken by this we had so much hope for a new system which would give us freedom to help our daughter in the way we saw best and we were promised that our plans would be individualised and based on her needs and it could not be further from the reality. We are far worse off and left to navigate a failing inconsistent system alone and it's almost broken me I considered myself a good advocate for my child and going into this I felt confident and fairly knowledgeable and thought that this would help me negotiate a fair and individualised support plan for my child, I believed that we would have far better access to necessary equipment and assistive technologies which would be available when the person with disabilities required it rather than the long wait times that state funding previously had in place, we were told that the funding would be available when equipment was needed yet the reality is the exact same process of having to submit requests for equipment that now are handled with huge inconsistencies and a complete lack of any guidelines and often means families are spending up to 10 hours trialling and submitting requests for one piece of equipment which in our case comes from our therapy budget as we have not been given stated supports for equipment trials and reviews so on average we spend $1500-$3000 just on this then often they refuse to fund the request after all that or ask for more information. We literally can't afford to even do one therapy weekly let alone the 5 regular therapies she requires and previously accessed under ADCH, the vast majority of our 'Therapy' budget has been spent on this ridiculous process of never ending hoop jumping. This has been a devastating let-down for so many families, careers and people with disabilities.We have to get this system right. This cannot continue. And all we get from the NDIA when we ask questions is platitudes. It has to be stop. It has to be fixed. Senate adjourned at 19:49 DOCUMENTS 6600 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6600 Tabling 6601