DOCUMENTS

2017-10-16 45 1 4 Senate 0 1

Monday, 16 October 2017

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? If not, we will proceed with business. BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 1

Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 10:01 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Labor supports the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 because, in principle, we support transparency in the operations of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Border Force, and of course that should also extend to the contractors who provide services to them. In particular, we have long called for greater transparency in the conduct of Australia's onshore detention centres and the offshore immigration processing centres. The bill does not directly concern those centres, of course, but it is important in the context of the operation of the department. This bill provides a clearer and narrower definition of information that is protected and what is protected from disclosure. It also clarifies people's capacity to disclose non-protected information, and it adds three new permitted purposes for which personal information can be disclosed under the Australian Border Force Act, to include intercountry adoptions, the protections of national security and the locations of missing persons. Existing secrecy and disclosure provisions in the act were adapted from the now repealed Customs Administration Act. Labor supported those provisions at the time but, since the act was passed, there has been some confusion about what information is protected and what information can be disclosed. Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry to allow stakeholders to have their say about its consequences. Submissions to that inquiry generally supported the narrowing of the kinds of information that should be protected. But submitters raised concerns about the provision in the bill, as it was originally drafted, which allowed the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to prescribe by legislative instrument additional information that could be protected from disclosure. Labor shared these concerns, and we are pleased that the bill was amended in the House of Representatives. The amended bill now before the Senate gives the minister, not the secretary, the power to prescribe additional protected information by legislative instrument. The instrument is subject to disallowance, as it was in the original form of the bill. The amended bill is a great improvement on the original because the power to prescribe protected information should not rest with an unelected public servant; it is properly exercised by the minister, who can be held accountable by parliament. This was not the only concern for Labor in the original form of the bill. During the Senate inquiry into the bill, the chair, Senator Macdonald, said—and I don't often quote Senator Macdonald: I'm uncomfortable with the fact that public servants, albeit the highest public servant in the area, is making these legally binding rulings. I accept that if the minister did it he would do it on the advice of the secretary. The power to add to protected information by legislative instrument exists to deal with unforeseen changes in circumstances. In response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report, the minister cited these examples of the information that might come under new powers: the internal tools for visa decisions that, if disclosed, could increase a person's prospect of being granted a visa for which they might not otherwise be eligible; or the internal procedures for assessing applications for Australia's trusted trader status under the Customs Act that, if disclosed, could lead to an entity receiving this status that otherwise might not have been given. The minister should always be willing to be held accountable and to justify any decisions to protect information from disclosure. The bill in its present form now makes that clear. I have had to say too many times in this chamber: there must be greater transparency in the administration of Australia's detention centres and Australian-funded offshore processing centres. The government's mismanagement of these offshore processing centres, particularly in regard to issues of welfare and garrison support have been subject to two scathing Australian National Audit Office reports. In September 2016, Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into allegations of serious abuse and neglect and instances of self-harm as outlined in the Nauru files, because the government had failed to act. Labor deplores the government's complete failure to act in the 3½ months since the inquiry's report and its recommendations. Manus Island and Nauru were set up as regional transit processing facilities but have become places of indefinite detention because the government has not found third-country resettlement options. It has in many ways, I think, placed great emphasis on a single agreement with a former US administration about which the present administration has been far from enthusiastic. Refugees should be removed from the offshore centres and resettled to third countries as soon as possible. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton need to get on with the job of making that happen, and Labor would support them in genuine attempts to do that, as we support this bill. While I'm on my feet, may I also draw attention to the commencement today of the full bench of the Fair Work Commission for its hearing into the pay dispute between the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and their staff. They're critical to the implementation of many of these measures before the chamber at the moment. The dispute has now been underway for four years, and during that time thousands of Immigration and Border Protection staff have had to fight tooth and nail, both in the Abbott and the Turnbull governments, over pay and conditions, while suffering real wage cuts. These are the people we look to to protect Australia's borders at sea, in airports and at ports. These are the people we look to maintain our visa system, to process citizenship applications and to protect Australians from the importation of dangerous and prohibited goods. They have a critical role to play. They've got a focal point on providing the security on which this country so depends. Yet they are subject to constant antiworker agendas by this government. We have had four years of that assault. The government has sought to provide minimum pay rises for its own employees. It offered 3.4 per cent, which was rejected by 81 per cent of the department's workforce. In the various ballots that have been held the government clearly has not been able to maintain the support of its workforce. This is in the context where the most senior executives, who are on pay rates of well over $600,000 a year, are receiving pay rises well in excess of that that's being offered to the rest of the department. So four per cent is being offered to the most senior executives, but only 3.4 per cent to the other ranks. There seems to be a fundamental injustice in that disparity. Little wonder that this dispute has gone on for so long. It is important that the full bench of the Fair Work Commission are able to hear this matter, and I trust that they're able to do so in a speedy manner. You would have thought that the government ought to be championing the rights of its employees instead of, in fact, doing exactly the opposite—maintaining this confrontational cost-cutting antiworker ideology. We rely heavily upon the public servants in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to protect Australians, to provide us with safety and security. You would have thought that the least we could do was provide a proper basis for ensuring that they get at least the same remuneration and are treated on the same basis as the senior executives within the government department. If it's good enough to offer four per cent to the senior executive service and the secretary, surely it's good enough to offer the rest of the department the same rate. 10:13 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 revises the secrecy and disclosure provisions contained within the Australian Border Force Act 2015. The explanatory memorandum states: This revision is necessary to clarify the policy intent and simplify the administration of the provisions. The explanatory memorandum further states: This Bill clarifies the policy and legislative intent, which is to protect certain information from unauthorised disclosure to prevent harm to national and public interests, while meeting the expectations of the Australian community of transparency and accountability within the Australian Government. This balance is needed to appropriately manage information disclosures and preserve public confidence in government. While the Greens won't be opposing this bill, we believe that the explanation given by the government is complete and utter rubbish and demonstrably so. It's worth going back through the history of these provisions. On 20 May 2015 the Australian parliament passed the Australian Border Force Act. This act came into force on 1 July 2015. Section 42 of that act provides that it's an offence for someone who is or has been an entrusted person to make a record of or disclose protected information. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for two years. This provision—which still exists as we debate here today, with a minor amendment delivered by the government with regard to medical professionals—was designed by the government and supported by the Labor Party, for no other reason than to suppress the true horrors of what is happening on Manus Island and Nauru and inside Australia's onshore immigration detention regime. It was designed to have, and had, a chilling effect on freedom of speech in this country. It was designed to prevent people from speaking out about what they witnessed, including many people who had either a professional or a moral obligation to do so. The current section 42 is a draconian measure, designed, as I said, to keep secret the horrors of what is happening on Manus Island and Nauru and inside Australia's onshore detention regime. When the act was introduced, many people working in detention centres and offshore processing centres raised concerns about its potential to undermine their capacity to do their jobs. They would basically be at risk of two years imprisonment for publicly expressing concerns. And, remember, those so-called freedom-of-speech warriors on the government side of this chamber—who purport to care about freedom of speech when in fact they're using that issue as another weapon in the ongoing culture wars in this country—all voted for section 42 as it currently stands. When the act commenced in 2015, a group of doctors, nurses, teachers and other then-current and former detention centre workers on Nauru and Manus Island wrote an open letter to the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott; to Minister Dutton; and to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten. In part, this letter stated: We have advocated, and will continue to advocate, for the health of those for whom we have a duty of care, despite the threats of imprisonment, because standing by and watching sub-standard and harmful care, child abuse and gross violations of human rights is not ethically justifiable. If we witness child abuse in Australia we are legally obliged to report it to child protection authorities. … … … If we witness child abuse in detention centres, we can go to prison for attempting to advocate for them effectively. The Australian Greens couldn't have put it any better ourselves. This was a provision—and it remains in force today as we debate this amendment—that was designed with no other end in mind than to allow the government to continue its cover-up of what is happening, particularly on Manus Island and Nauru. It was designed to drape a cloak of secrecy over the horrors of indefinite offshore detention, a regime that is supported by every single member of this Senate from the Labor, Liberal and National parties. That's what it was designed to do, and you know what? To a large degree, it worked. I've spoken personally to a number of people who've been staff members on Manus Island and Nauru. I've spoken personally to people who worked in those places and who wanted to tell the truth about what they saw there. Some of them even took legal advice about what the implications would be if they spoke the truth about what they saw there. But they couldn't, because they were facing up to two years in prison for simply talking about the horrors that they witnessed. Section 42 as it currently stands is an absolute disgrace. The concerns articulated in the open letter written by former detention centre workers on Nauru and Manus Island culminated in the filing of a constitutional challenge to some provisions of section 42 by Doctors for Refugees on 27 July last year. As I alluded to earlier, on 30 September 2016, the secretary of the Australian government Department of Immigration and Border Protection amended the determination in order to exclude health practitioners from the application of the secrecy provisions. I note that, even though the determination exempts health professionals, Doctors for Refugees have subsequently confirmed that the High Court proceedings are ongoing. Here's the real reason that this amendment bill is before the parliament today: the government knows that it hasn't got a constitutional leg to stand on here. The government knows that it is going to lose in the High Court, and that's why the government has brought this amendment bill into the parliament. Nothing has actually changed since the Labor and Liberal parties supported the current provisions of section 42 of the Border Force Act. If the government expects this Senate to believe that it has suddenly had an attack of conscience, well, pull the other one—because we're not buying it. The reason this amendment bill has been brought in is that the government knows it's going to lose in the High Court. There is no other reason. And that's the reason for the retrospectivity elements contained in this legislation. I mean, pull the other one, Minister; it's got bells on it. It's worth pointing out that, even though medical professions were exempted, other workers, including teachers, counsellors and social workers, are still caught by the current provisions. Many people have described the current section 42 as having a chilling effect, and they are absolutely right—as it was designed to do. Section 42 had a chilling effect on freedom of speech in this country and a chilling effect on our democracy. People felt that they were unable to speak out about what they witnessed on Manus Island, on Nauru and in onshore detention centres. The provisions contained in section 42 prevent people from making legitimate criticisms of government policy—a clear breach of the implied freedom of political communication contained in our Constitution. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted in a report that: … in continuing to criminalise the disclosure of information, the secrecy provisions as amended by the Bill continue to engage and limit the right to freedom of expression. It's worth pointing out here that the current existence of section 42 is yet another example of why Australia needs a charter of rights. We are the only Western democracy in the world without either a legislated charter of rights or a constitutionally embedded bill of rights. So we're the only Western democracy that does not protect the basic rights and the basic freedoms of its people either through legislation or in the Constitution. I have no doubt that, had we had a charter of rights when this section was brought in in 2015, we would not be in this place debating section 42 of the Border Force Act today. In the many statements that were put forward by the right-wing culture warriors of this place—the self-anointed great defenders of freedom of speech—during the debate about whether we should repeal or amend the provisions of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, not one of those purported great defenders of freedom of speech mentioned section 42 of the Border Force Act. It simply was not advanced as an argument by them because, of course, to do so would not have suited their real agenda, which actually had nothing to do with freedom of speech and had everything to do with allowing their mates to use the 'N' word in public debate in this country. They didn't want the veil of secrecy over what is happening on Manus Island, on Nauru, on Christmas Island and in onshore detention centres lifted; they wanted it to stay in place. It's worth recalling that Amnesty International reported in 2016: The abuses on Nauru have been facilitated by the deliberate policy of secrecy, again established by the government of Australia ... This has had a chilling effect on disclosures about human rights abuses, and many service-providers and asylum seekers were too scared to speak with Amnesty International researchers. There you go—that's why section 42 was in place: to stop people speaking out. The same report from Amnesty International said: The conditions on Nauru—refugees' severe mental anguish, the intentional nature of the system, and the fact that the goal of offshore processing is to intimate or coerce people to achieve a specific outcome—amounts to torture. That is, torture delivered by the Labor and Liberal parties in this place to thousands of people who've done nothing wrong. As we sit here today, the Australian government is waiting to hear whether we've been elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council—along with the Philippines, I might add, for those who are thinking that a seat on the Human Rights Council means the international community is in some way indicating that countries that have a seat there have a good human rights record. When Australia was lobbying for that seat, I wonder whether they mentioned that they were involved in torturing people who sought Australia's protection and would imprison, for up to two years, people who spoke out about it? I was a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee that conducted an inquiry into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru and Manus Island processing centres. As I said during the course of that inquiry, I was contacted by many present and former staff on Manus Island and Nauru who wanted to raise their concerns and make submissions or speak to the inquiry. Without exception, they were in a range between apprehensive and bloody terrified about speaking to the inquiry because of section 42. It was only the comfort offered by parliamentary privilege that allowed some current and former staff to come forward and make submissions to that inquiry. Michel Forst, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, referred, in his end of mission report in 2016, to the stifling Border Force Act. He further stated: ... the Act's existence and government actions aimed at censoring and intimidating advocates has had a chilling effect on the disclosure of information about violations in off-shore processing. And I have received evidence of significant consequences for [people who] blew the whistle. I met several doctors, teachers, lawyers and journalists, who either spoke out or covered conditions in offshore detention places and who have been under heavy surveillance. In September 2015, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Mr Francois Crepeau, announced that he would postpone his official visit to Australia due to 'the lack of full cooperation from the government regarding protection concerns and access to detention centres'. Mr Crepeau stated that he had sought a written guarantee from the government that no-one meeting with him during his visit would be at risk of any intimidation or sanctions under the Border Force Act and that this written assurance was not provided. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the former workers on Manus Island and Nauru who have gone public about the conditions and treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in those places. At great personal risk, they have spoken out and should be applauded for doing so. Make no mistake, section 42 of the Border Force Act delivered by the Labor and Liberal parties in Australia was deliberately designed to have a chilling effect on our democracy and a chilling effect on freedom of speech in this country, and to draw a veil of secrecy over the horrors of Australia's offshore and onshore detention system. It prevented many people from speaking out about what they'd witnessed, including many who had a professional or moral obligation to do so. So to everyone who stood up for transparency, to everyone who was prepared to risk imprisonment to speak the truth, to everyone who fought Labor and Liberal draconian measures, this is a win for you today. The terrible truth of what the Labor and Liberal parties have done to people on Manus Island and Nauru in the name of all Australians will come out eventually—that terrible truth—and then, finally, some of the wounds will begin to heal. Until then, we can be heartened that there are many, many Australians who will continue to fight tenaciously for this to happen. Doctors for Refugees stated in evidence to the committee inquiry into this legislation that, while they welcome changes that limit the way the Australian Border Force Act impacts on workers who provide care and services to refugees and asylum seekers, their position remains that imposing criminal sanctions on people who speak out against conditions in detention has no place either in Australian democracy or in the provision of health care. Refugee Legal submitted that, even with the passage of the bill, the Australian Border Force Act will continue to have a 'chilling effect' on disclosures that may in fact be in the public interest. As I've said, we won't be opposing this legislation, because it does somewhat improve section 42 of the Border Force Act. But I want it firmly on the record that we're still not happy with section 42, even if it is amended as proposed in this legislation, and we are still not happy with a range of other sections of the Border Force Act in this country. I move the second reading amendment circulated in the chamber: At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate notes the chilling effect that section 42 of the Australian Border Force Act 2015 has had on the immigration debate in Australia and condemns the Government and the Opposition for introducing and supporting the existing section." 10:33 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I welcome the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 and the small step that it takes towards increasing transparency within Australia's offshore detention centres. I have, though, been very much appalled by the Turnbull government's lack of transparency and by its attempts to suppress whistleblowers and staff from highlighting significant concerns, instances of abuse, and the mistreatment of asylum seekers on Manus Island and in Nauru. This bill will have the practical effect of narrowing the definition of information that is protected from disclosure. It removes the broad definition of 'protected information' and gives greater clarity as to what private information is actually protected. Labor, of course, supports this move for increasing transparency—which we have been calling on for such a long period of time—into Australia's onshore detention centres and offshore immigration processing or detention centres. This bill means that individuals who have been involved in Australia's offshore detention system as contractors or employees of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, such as Save the Children workers, social workers, psychologists, doctors and lawyers, will be able to speak more freely about their experiences without fear of prosecution and without fear of up to two years imprisonment. The Turnbull government's mismanagement of offshore processing centres and welfare and support contracts has been already the subject of two scathing reports by the Australian National Audit Office. Both reports have clearly shown that greater transparency was needed. I have been contacted over and over by people who are angry and upset—and rightly so—at the release of the Nauru files, where 26 former Save the Children workers on Manus Island and Nauru detailed what they saw and described as allegations of sexual assault and self-harm in the Nauru detention centre. This was towards women; it was towards children. It was an absolute and utter disgrace. One of the workers stated, 'You feel you can't talk about it, even though you know you should talk about it'. If it is not in the public interest to hear the experience from these workers of what is happening in our name, in Australia's name, in these offshore detention facilities, then I don't know what is. The files, which the government shrouded in secrecy, included reports of genital mutilation against young women, people sewing their lips shut, self-immolation, sexual violence, and gross mishandling of incidents by private contractors. That is what the government wanted to keep secret. That is what the government did not want the Australian public to know was happening. In September 2016, off the back of the information and experiences detailed by these workers, Labor initiated a Senate inquiry to investigate these allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect. The Turnbull government had failed to act. The government's total inaction for the past four months on the chair's conclusions and the recommendations from that Senate inquiry is extremely appalling. It is extremely disappointing. Part of our democracy is to inquire and investigate—through the parliament and through the Senate committee process—these government failings and issues. The government needs to respond to the recommendations in that report. It has failed so far to do so. Let's remember that the Australian Border Force Act has previously been used by the Abbott government to attempt to prosecute Save the Children workers after they revealed serious allegations of abuse of women and children. Here are workers on the ground, contracted by government to do a job. When they experience and see firsthand what is going on in these government-funded, government-run immigration detention facilities, what does our government do? When the workers report these serious allegations of abuse of women and children, what does our government do? It attempts to prosecute them. These workers were removed from the island and referred to the Australian Federal Police—by Minister Morrison, the minister for immigration at that time—for allegedly breaching section 70 of the Crimes Act. I hope this amendment will mean that this can never happen again—that a non-government organisation, contracted by a government to do a job, that saw, in the course of their work, abuse being carried out, and that, instead of being able to report and be transparent and open about their work and their job and what they saw, were suppressed—and, in fact, threatened—by a government, which said, 'Well, you go ahead and do that and we will prosecute you.' That is an absolute disgrace. That is shameful. That is why Labor very much supports this amendment to ensure that this can never happen again. Beyond this bill there are other things that this issue raises. This is a government that has systematically maligned asylum seekers and refugees and mismanaged offshore processing on Manus Island and Nauru. Indeed, there has not been any processing for the last four years. No-one in this chamber, I am sure, can possibly believe that people who sought our asylum should still be on Manus Island and Nauru in these detention facilities some four years on. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection have sat on their hands for too long in failing to explore every possible alternative to asylum seekers being stuck and locked up on Manus Island and Nauru. So this bill is a good step in increasing transparency in our offshore detention system. I was very pleased to hear earlier this year when the government finally agreed that it would ratify the optional protocol against torture, which also requires more monitoring and investigation of what goes on in Australia's prisons and detention facilities. But I think what has been very clear to me is that, whilst we have argued for this government to lift its game in this appalling policy area of immigration detention, we are not alone here. We stand here with the voice of our own communities. Indeed, my community in Tasmania has always been an extremely outspoken one when it comes to the issues of refugees and asylum seekers. I've received hundreds and hundreds of letters, protesting not only the conditions of Australia's offshore detention centres but also the secrecy that Australia's offshore detention regime has been shrouded in. That is why this government has been basically dragged kicking and screaming to bring this amendment forward today, to backflip on its original position—because of lobbying by civil society, by the Labor Party and by people in our community who have said that this cannot go on. The issue of transparency and accountability in the work undertaken by these staff is critical to the trust and integrity that Australians have in our immigration and humanitarian programs. That is why this bill is so important, in that it tangibly means that individuals who've been involved in Australia's offshore detention system in any way—contractors, social workers, psychologists, departmental staff, doctors; you name it—will be able to speak more freely about their experiences and what they've seen with less fear of prosecution. In winding back the government's total suppression of so-called whistleblowers and staff speaking out on Australia's offshore detention regime, this bill is a good thing. It does highlight why independent monitoring is so important. The chairperson of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Sir Malcolm Evans, said: This is why we think independent monitoring is so important—transparency is one of the greatest protections here. Where there's a lack of transparency, naturally there will be concerns things are not as they ought. It pretty much is common sense. Hiding or shrouding a practice in secrecy means there must be something that the government wants to hide in the first place. There have been a number of parts of civil society that have led to the government having to back down in its policy of secrecy, and I would like to acknowledge them. I would like to acknowledge the work of Save the Children in particular for originally speaking out; the work of Guardian Australia in the release of the Nauru files; the ongoing important work of the UNHCR; and, indeed, other parts of community and society, like Doctors for Refugees, the Refugee Council of Australia and so many other NGOs working every day to help rebuild the lives of refugees—people who have already suffered enough. Finally, I would like to recognise that there is critical work going on not just in those particular facilities but also here in Australia for those who have been deemed refugees, have refugee status and have been able to settle. They are members of our community who work each day, who volunteer, to make sure that we as a country put humanity first and act humanely to ensure that people can rebuild their lives after fleeing persecution and after the suffering that they've endured. I want Australia to be recognised as a welcoming, humane country for those people right now and also into the future. The only way that can happen is if this sad and sorry chapter of the last four years comes to an end for those who have been trapped on Manus Island and Nauru without any hope or any future in sight for settlement. It is a failure of this government that they have not settled these asylum seekers and refugees—shame on them. It's time that this ends. Let's hope this bill is only the beginning of that becoming a reality. 10:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017. Part 6 of the Australian Border Force Act 2015 regulates the protection and disclosure of information held by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill amends part 6 and related provisions to clarify the original intent of the legislation, which is to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information that could cause harm to the national or public interest. The aim of the measures in this bill is to ensure that immigration and border protection information is not only provided with the necessary level of protection in a targeted manner but is also able to be disclosed when it is appropriate to do so. The bill provides assurances for the Australian public, business, government and foreign partners that sensitive information provided to the department will be appropriately protected. The bill acknowledges the balancing of the competing interests of transparent, open and accountable government with the necessary interest of protecting information from disclosure which would lead to identifiable harm. The retrospective application of the bill, backdated to the enactment of the Australian Border Force Act 2015, will provide the necessary certainty that only information which could harm the national or public interest if disclosed is to be protected and will be regarded as ever having been protected under the Australian Border Force Act. With those comments, I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:53]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Gallacher)

7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 44 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Carr, KJ Cash, MC Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Singh, LM Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Williams, JR Wong, P Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 8 10:57 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move the amendments standing in my name on sheet 8251: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 9 to 31), omit the definition of Immigration and Border Protection information, substitute: Immigration and Border Protection information means information of any of the following kinds that was obtained by a person in the person's capacity as an entrusted person: (a) information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to damage the security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979), defence or international relations (within the meaning of section 10 of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004) of Australia; (b) information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of, or conduct of proceedings relating to, an offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision; (c) information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to prejudice the protection of public health, or endanger the life or safety of an individual or group of individuals; (d) information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to found an action by a person (other than the Commonwealth) for breach of a duty of confidence and is damaging to the regulatory function of the Department; (e) information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to cause competitive detriment to a person; (f) information of a kind prescribed in an instrument under subsection (7). Note: See also subsections (4) to (7). (2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 16) to page 5 (line 7), omit the item, substitute: 5 At the end of section 4 Add: (5) Without limiting the definition of Immigration and Border Protection information in subsection (1), information that has originated with, or been received from an intelligence agency is taken to be information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia. (6) Without limiting the definition of Immigration and Border Protection information in subsection (1), information that was provided to the Commonwealth pursuant to a statutory obligation or otherwise by compulsion in law is taken to be information the disclosure of which would or is reasonably likely to found an action by a person (other than the Commonwealth) for breach of duty of confidence. The amendments proposed reflect the recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia in their submissions to the inquiry into this bill. The recommendations from the Australian Human Rights Commission aim to advance the bill's stated objective and enhance the bill's compatibility with human rights. The unauthorised disclosure of information under section 42 of the Australian Border Force Act carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. The Australian Human Rights Commission submitted that, given the adverse consequences associated with a criminal conviction, criminal penalties should only attach to the unauthorised disclosure when it harms essential public interests. The term 'would or could reasonably be expected to' potentially criminalises the disclosure of information where there is a reasonable possibility but not the reasonable likelihood of prejudice. Using prejudice broadens the application to include disclosures that disadvantage rather than harm or damage. Prejudice could be about protecting the reputation of the department rather than causing any actual damage to the department. There are multiple definitions of 'security' in federal legislation, and security is not confined to the Australian Border Force Act. For clarity and consistency, the definition of security in the ASIO Act describes security in specific terms. The term 'international relations' is also undefined. Using the definition in the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 would lessen the chance that unauthorised disclosures that simply embarrass the government without causing any real damage would fall outside the scope of the offence. In relation to the duty of confidence: the Australian Human Rights Commission submitted that there must be compelling justification to support secrecy provisions that criminalise the unauthorised disclosure of information that is not reasonably likely to harm essential public interests. While it's accepted that people and companies will provide sensitive information that they expect the department to keep confidential, the provision as currently drafted is too broad. The Australian Law Reform Commission stated: The category of information protected should be narrowly defined, so that the secrecy provision is not so wide as to cover information that would not harm the regulatory functions of the agency. Competitive detriment is, once again, an extremely broad provision. Civil law remedies such as contractual, common law and equitable remedies are available to address the problem of improper disclosure of commercial information. Extending criminal liability to the unauthorised disclosure of information that would or could cause competitive detriment is inappropriate. The Australian Human Rights Commission considers that the deeming of information with a security classification as information requiring protection—without any consideration of the context of the information or whether it has been correctly classified—is a blanket provision that unduly restricts freedom of expression, political communication and legitimate public scrutiny. So there you have it. The Greens are attempting to improve this legislation, to narrow the scope of what can be determined to be protected information. We are doing so in order to lessen the effect on freedom of communication that the Australian Border Force Act will have, even should the amendments currently before the Senate be passed. 11:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government will not be supporting the Australian Greens amendment. The government considers that its proposed definition of immigration and border protection information strikes the correct balance between transparent, open and accountable government and protecting information from disclosure that would lead to identifiable harm. The explanatory memorandum provides a clear outline of what is covered by security, defence and international relations in the context of the bill. Therefore, there is no need to refer to other legislation to define these terms. I do note that the government has given effect to the recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Mr Temporary Chair Leyonhjelm, you'd be aware that the committee made one recommendation, and that the government accepted that recommendation, such that the minister will now have the power to prescribe additional kinds of immigration and border protection information instead of the secretary, as had been originally drafted. With those comments, I reiterate that we will not be supporting the Australian Greens amendment. 11:04 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. The amendments that have been moved by the Greens do not come with the support of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into the bill. As I understand it, the essential difference that is being proposed here is that the Human Rights Commission suggested the bill be amended to delete the words: … would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia and to replace those words with, 'reasonably likely to damage the security defence or international relations'. We have a difference from 'prejudice' to 'damage', so there is a fine difference. Upon legal advice, the opposition has taken the view that the proposition in the bill stands, and we support that notion. Consistent with a number of submissions that were made to the Senate inquiry, we welcome the legislation for what it does in narrowing the scope of information that would be protected and offering greater clarity about the types of information that could be publicly disclosed. That included support from the Refugee Advice and Casework Service and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Dr Joyce Chia from the Refugee Council of Australia provided testimony to the public hearing of the Senate inquiry, stating: Like others who have made submissions, we believe this is a welcome and long-overdue bill … Labor support the bill before the Senate as it stands because we support the additional transparency and accountability that will be provided. It is important to clarify any real or perceived confusion about whether or not the information is actually protected. Labor agrees that people should have the right to disclose non-sensitive information where appropriate and where required. This is crucial to the trust and integrity that Australians have in our immigration and humanitarian programs. We'll continue to hold the government to account on these matters, particularly in regard to its failure in the management of Australia's offshore processing arrangements. The amendments the Greens are proposing do not change people's capacity to disclose non-protected information, so Labor will be opposing this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 111206 The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet on sheet 8251, moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:11]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Leyonhjelm)

8 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Leyonhjelm, DE McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Carr, KJ Cash, MC Dastyari, S Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ryan, SM Smith, D (teller) Sterle, G Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 10 11:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017 11

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 11 11:14 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents. Ordered that the report be printed. Second Reading 11 11:15 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Thank you, Senator Smith, for actually making a timely tabling of the committee report on this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. The limited merits review is a review mechanism which allows companies to dispute determinations by the Australian Energy Regulator about investment plans and electricity prices Australian households and businesses face. There is great interest in the community around these issues at the moment, and it's important that there is understanding across the community about how these processes operate. The limited merits review was initially implemented to ensure companies could have their case heard if the regulator made a mistake. It has become a mechanism companies use as part of their regular business model to have inflated investment plans signed off so that they can access regulated prices hikes. This means higher prices for consumers and gold-plated infrastructure. To their credit, and with the support of some states, like South Australia and Victoria, the government has attempted to reform the LMR process, but has been blocked at every turn by states opposed to reforming the status quo. Since 2013, 12 of the Australian Energy Regulator's 20 decisions on electricity network revenue and gas access arrangements have been subject to challenge by network businesses using the LMR process. Taken together, these 12 network businesses asked the tribunal to increase their revenue by around $7.3 billion over a five-year period. That is revenue that ultimately comes from electricity consumers across the country, from families facing ever higher prices. Thus far, $6.5 billion has been awarded to companies, contributing to the recent retail electricity price increases of up to 20 per cent we've seen around the country. The government is right in saying enough is enough. If the states can't agree to reform the LMR process so it is focused on good outcomes for consumers, not just on good profits for network businesses, then, we believe, it's time to remove the LMR. The LMR is not the only avenue for appeal that network businesses have. It's important that people understand that this is not closing off all forms of appeal. This bill won't abolish access to courts if decisions are seen to be unfair or against the rules—and then the process of the courts can continue to operate—but it will mean that companies will no longer be able to use the LMR process to justify excessive investment that generates higher regulated prices and higher revenues. Labor supports its passage. 11:18 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The Greens will be supporting this legislation. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017 is a piece of legislation that, when it comes to energy policy, is very, very rare. It's so rare as to be a unicorn. It's something we're not seeing in the energy debate at the moment. It's sensible policy, something that's got the support of evidence behind it, something that's informed and something that shows evidence of listening to experts rather than taking advice from a delusional former Prime Minister who talks about sacrificing goats to volcanoes and thinks that global warming is a great thing for humanity. It's a pretty sad debate that we're having at the moment. If you look at where we've been over the past decade or so, you see that what we've got at the moment is the rest of the world being prepared to take full advantage of the huge opportunities that come with making the transition to a renewable energy economy. They recognise it's good for jobs. It's good for investment, it brings power prices down and, of course, most importantly, it brings emissions down so that we can begin the huge task of tackling dangerous global warming, yet what we've got is a government prepared to bring lumps of coal into the parliament. We've got former prime ministers going rogue. We've got backbenchers who believe that global warming is a big hoax. We've got members of this chamber who think it's some part of some huge international conspiracy. It's just remarkable when you see where the energy debate has got to in this country. That's why it's good to be standing up here supporting a piece of legislation that is sensible. Normally, when you look at the Liberal Party's guiding philosophy, you'd think they are generally very happy for our economy to be working in the best interests of the rich and powerful. That's who they are. And here we have a piece of legislation that actually reins in the ability of energy companies to game—and they do game the system; they do manipulate it for their own benefit. They use the existing regulations to make sure that their interests prevail over the national interest. And we know from today's report from the ACCC that network costs are responsible for almost half of the increase in our regular power bills. They made it very clear that, when it comes to rising energy prices, we shouldn't be blaming renewable energy. We shouldn't be blaming the fact that both the business community and, indeed, some members of the parliament recognise that moving towards renewable energy is indeed a great opportunity to boost jobs, to bring in investment and to bring down prices. The ACCC made it very clear that, when it comes to increased prices, it's not renewable energy that's the problem; it is the fact that we are gold-plating the poles and wires in our network system. They make it very clear that the rules are broken. We know that the government isn't acting because they've suddenly seen the light on climate change; they suddenly realise there's a need to bring down emissions; or they recognise that all of the independent reviews, whether they be the Finkel review, their own Warburton review or many others, demonstrate that you bring down prices when you get more renewables in the system. They're not doing it for those reasons. They're doing it because they have got nowhere else to go. When you look at the way the rules are structured at the moment, you see the current system allows a massive investment in our network infrastructure, some of it completely unnecessary, some of it investing money that could be spent in other areas that would drive down power prices. But the rules are so rigged that they allow these companies to gold-plate that network infrastructure, make huge profits and, as a result of that, see huge increases in energy prices. They realise that, despite the rhetoric on one hand blaming renewables, we're in here reining in these network companies because this is the best way of bringing down energy prices. It's one of the most significant interventions that we can make. If we seriously care about prices then let's recognise that the rules are rigged and we need to change them. That's what this legislation does. If you're serious about lowering power prices—and all the information is telling us that renewables bring down prices—then you've got no other option but to start doing something about network regulation. This tinkers around the edges. There's a lot more that can be done, but it's a small step forward. The network rules that we're amending are a labyrinth of rules that were set up in the heyday of 1990s competition policy. They're rules that have failed consumers. They've failed to allow innovation to occur through demand responses, they've held back storage technologies and they've utterly failed to reduce pollution in the system. They've been a failure holding back progress. What this bill will do is stop those network companies from gaming the system through a whole range of legal appeals. It reduces power bills by preventing companies who want to invest in unnecessary work on the grid from challenging decisions made by the Australian Energy Regulator that would be made in the interests of actually reducing prices. So it prevents that appeals process that benefits big network companies over people who use energy in this country. Of course, it's not going to stop the huge rorting that occurs—the large-scale rorting by companies who benefited from the privatisation agenda. It won't stop the New South Wales and Queensland governments, who are raising revenue through inflated interest charges. So it isn't just the big companies that benefit. Let's remember that you've got governments in New South Wales and Queensland who are using the rules to tax their community by stealth. Change is absolutely necessary. It's critical. There's no other industry in this country that gets a guaranteed rate of return on their investments in the same way that these companies are getting at the moment. They're not forced by a market or a regulator to revise their asset values down and, as a result, their assets—which are basically the reason they can keep generating an automatic return—are hugely overvalued. They're overvalued because the taxpayer pays for it. The taxpayer pays for it, so they don't have to answer for making bad decisions, poor investment choices and all those mistakes that they have made over the last decade. They basically just get to cream the profits when, ultimately, it's of no benefit to the community. So it's important we stand here and change the rules to prevent them from basically making profits at the expense of taxpayers. Look, if the government wanted to act seriously in the interests of households and if it wanted to take on the greedy energy companies and those sneaky state governments that seek to benefit, then what they would do is massively reduce the return on capital that these network companies get to reflect the fact that they're getting a risk-free rate of return. That's what we need to do. Stopping the appeals process is one step towards making the rules a little fairer, but it by no means addresses the underlying problem here, which is that you have state governments, complicit in this, allowing energy companies to make huge returns on their risk-free investments. That's what needs to be done. Of course, we know what needs to be done more broadly than that. If we want to make the transition to a future where prices come down, where jobs are created and where emissions are reduced so that we finally start taking the action we need to when it comes to tackling dangerous climate change, the answer is very straightforward: we need more renewables in the system. We need to make the transition away from coal, with more solar, more wind, a pumped hydro and a range of other new and emerging technologies to replace old, polluting fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are now more expensive than their renewable energy counterparts. That's how we make the transition to a renewable energy future where prices for power are down, where jobs are up and where emissions are down. Instead, under this government, what have we seen? We have seen their energy policy effectively subsidise an existing coal-fired power station for another few years. This thing is a relic of 1960s Russia and has become the centrepiece of the Coalition's election policy. Since they came to power, they repealed the carbon price. Remember that campaign around the carbon price: 'Vote for us! We'll abolish the carbon price, and your energy prices will come down.' What's happened since this mob have been in power is that they have repealed the carbon price, and the wholesale price of electricity has doubled. Since they've been in office, they've introduced more uncertainty into the renewable energy space so that companies are afraid of investing because they're not sure of what the regulatory parameters look like for them into the future. With the support of the Labor Party, they slashed the renewable energy target. They took money—half a billion—out of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Of course, they decided that they would repeal the carbon price because, in their words, it would reduce the cost of electricity for consumers. Well, the wholesale price has doubled, and it's doubled under their watch because of a series of bad decisions that privilege coal and gas over clean, green, renewable energy. They need to understand that it is these new technologies that will allow us to solve today's problems—not a return to the past. They need to understand that by holding back investment in renewables they're holding back jobs growth and they're holding back a more affordable energy supply for consumers right around the country. The future is straightforward: it's more solar, more wind, battery technology, demand management and energy efficiency. If we do that, it's good for consumers and the environment. It's win-win. We need to get a bit of rationality back into the system and to try and take the appalling politics out of what's gone on in the energy debate and start replacing it with some rational decision-making. The way to do that is to look at what is happening right around the world, what the international investment community is doing and what business wants from the government, which is to have a very clear pathway for reducing emissions, creating jobs and making clear that renewable energy is a key part of the transition. When it comes to the issue of network companies, we think that the solution looks like companies that are able to charge government bond rates rather than a commercial market rate to fund their capital and maintenance. We think that is a more appropriate regulatory regime. We think it makes much more sense to recognise that the network is something for all of us—for all, it's an essential piece of infrastructure. It is critical to allow people to purchase energy at an affordable price and the way to do that is by putting some constraints around what many of these network companies are able to do. It would mean, of course, that only governments or maybe a select few super funds who were looking for stable, long-term, risk-free investments would want to invest. You wouldn't see the gaming that currently goes on. We'd like to see the transition of a grid that is not in the control of corporate cowboys but that allows governments and super funds a long-term, stable rate of return, at the same time making sure that we drive down prices for ordinary people. Again, the ACCC belled the cat today. They made it very clear that, when you look at the increasing price of power paid at the moment, it's not renewable energy that's the problem. It is this massive investment by these network companies in their poles and wires because we've got a rigged system that allows them to make that investment and fleece consumers while providing them with no additional benefit. And the government has done absolutely nothing about it. I say to every person in the country: when you open your energy bill, you should be asking for a photo of the energy minister, Minister Frydenberg, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, just to remind you of who is responsible for the increased cost of electricity in Australia. It is under this government's watch, with no plan for the future, that we've seen energy costs skyrocket. It has nothing to do with the amount of renewable energy in the system. Indeed, the government's own reports, commissioned by this government—the Warburton review and now the Finkel review—all say very, very clearly that the more renewables you have in the system, the cheaper the wholesale price of electricity. That should be a good-news story. What we should be doing in this chamber is debating where the next wind farm is going to be built, where the next battery storage facility is going to be built and which states are going to be competing to ensure that their state is seen as the renewable energy powerhouse of the country. That's what this debate would look like if we had a government that put in place the parameters that we know are the pathway to cheap, emissions-free electricity generation, reducing power bills for everybody and getting rid of the rent-seeking that stifles meaningful energy market reform. That's what we need to be aiming for—not just tinkering at the margins but making sure that we have a 21st century energy system that caters for the needs of our community, brings down prices, brings down emissions and increases jobs right across regional Australia. So we will support this legislation. We will support it because it is one of the few pieces of legislation on energy policy that takes us at least one small step towards the low-emissions, low-cost future. But there's so much more work that needs to be done. We need a plan. We need a plan that at its basis has a transition pathway away from polluting coal-fired power, puts in some certainty for workers in the industry and puts a transition pathway explicitly laid out to those communities who will be most affected, providing them with a glimpse of what their future will look like: huge manufacturing opportunities in renewables; huge opportunities in the installation of large-scale solar and wind projects; and, of course, now the opportunity to look at large-scale energy storage projects and incentives to make sure that we've got energy storage solutions decentralised and located right around the country. We know that, when governments get out of the way, business steps in. That's what we saw in South Australia with the construction of the large-scale battery facility. Demand management is a big part of that response. Again, the government finally seems to have read the Energy Regulator's report and has recognised, finally, that demand management needs to be part of the picture and that we can, with the use of some clever software, make sure that we can smooth out those peaks and troughs in our grid so that we don't have to invest more in the polluting coal-fired power and gas infrastructure. Of course, all of this is at our fingertips. All it requires is a little bit of vision. But we know what's getting in the way here, and I'll finish with this: the reason that we don't have that sensible debate here in Australia right now is that we have massive donations coming from the fossil fuel industry, the coal and gas industry, to all of our major parties. It seems that being a member of the National Party these days is to be on a three-year-long job interview for the coal and gas industry. You do your term in parliament, and you spruik for the industry and make some connections while you're here so that you can get out and start doing the lobbying work of the coal and gas industry. Just look at the who's who when it comes to coal and gas. You've got people like Ian Macfarlane, John Anderson and Mark Vaile, those luminaries of LNP politics who are now out there doing the bidding of coal and gas. The revolving door exists, and it's spinning so fast now it's making us dizzy. What you have is people in this place who are getting massive donations from the coal and gas industry and can't wait to get out of the joint so that they can go and get a well-paid job working as an industry lobbyist and exploiting the relationships they've managed to develop while they've been in the parliament. That's why we don't have the transition in place, but it's up to all of us who understand what the future for Australia looks like—a renewables future with more jobs, more investment, lower emissions and lower prices. 11:38 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I have serious concerns about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. I have serious concerns because it may in the short term lead to some outcomes that are desirable but, in the longer term, I believe it will cause more problems. I say that because we do not have a coherent energy policy in this country. We need to ensure that in energy policy there are clear guidelines, clear parameters and clear incentives for there to be investment in our energy sector. We also need to deal with the mess of gas exports, where LNG is cheaper in Japan than it is here, notwithstanding that it's liquefied, shipped across the ocean and then deliquefied for use in Japan. We have done something seriously wrong with our energy policy over a number of years. There can be a partisan debate on this, but clearly we have failed to take up opportunities to ensure stability in the energy sector, to ensure more reliable energy and to that ensure prices come down. That is why I make no apology for continuing to support the views, the research and the work that was done by Frontier Economics back in 2009 when the then Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, and I jointly commissioned Frontier Economics to come up with an alternative emissions trading scheme: an energy intensity scheme. That scheme was derided by the opposition and others, but it has stood the test of time as a robust mechanism for encouraging investment whilst minimising the impact of prices and still allowing this nation to meet its Paris agreement targets, which I think must be met as a matter of urgency if we are serious about climate change. But let's go to this particular 'sugar hit' of legislation. I want to refer to the submission Frontier Economics made to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications in respect of this bill. It's worth reflecting on their concerns in relation to this. They are concerned that: The abolition of limited merits review (LMR) rights would do serious damage to the integrity of the regulatory framework that applies to regulated energy networks in Australia by removing crucial checks and balances on the AER’s decision-making. As I elaborate below, this, in turn, is likely to result in outcomes that would harm consumers over the long-term. As the Federal Energy Minister— the Honourable Mr Frydenberg— has acknowledged, since 2008 the AER has been found by the Tribunal and the Courts to have erred repeatedly in its decisions. According to the Minister, the AER’s decisions have been appealed 52 times and on 31 occasions the AER’s decisions have been found by the Tribunal and the Courts to have been made incorrectly. That is a pretty serious indictment in terms of the AER's decision-making process and the robustness of their decisions. As Frontier Economics points out: Under the current law, the merits review of an AER decision can only succeed if it can be established that (a) the AER’s decision contained an error, and (b) correcting that error is likely to lead to a materially preferable decision in the long-term interest of consumers. That must be taken into account. The submission goes on to say that the AER has a 'very poor track record in this regard', and that the 'removal of the accountability provided by limited merits review is likely to encourage the AER to make more erroneous decisions in future that force regulated businesses' down a path where we could end up having emergency investments down the track which will end up costing consumers in the long term because it will have us lurching from crisis to crisis. We could be looking at a situation where, in the future, billions of dollars for catch-up investments has to be funded once the system approaches breaking point. Having a system that lurches from crisis to crisis is not the way to run energy policy in this country. It's worth noting that the most mature regulatory regimes around the world, including those in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany, have some form of merits review. 'The abolition of limited merits review would be regressive and put Australia out of step with other advanced economies,' says Frontier Economics. I think it is interesting to note that this piece of legislation is out of kilter with COAG. Indeed, some consumer groups submitted to COAG that the abolition of limited merits review would remove an important legal protection that consumers currently benefit from. That is my concern: what impact will there be on consumers in the longer term? I think it is also worth noting that the decision to unilaterally abolish limited merits review trashes an agreement the Commonwealth and the states entered into when the states and the Commonwealth established a national electricity market many years ago. The states ceded their powers on the basis that there would be this safeguard. We are now trampling on that safeguard. But I acknowledge and note that, through the COAG process, the limited merits review should and could be improved through a whole range of measures. Those measures have been discussed by COAG, and those measures would include a whole range of steps that, in my view, would improve the robustness of the process: higher financial thresholds for leave which apply to individual grounds for review; reviews to be conducted on the papers rather than through expensive and adversarial oral hearings; introducing strict time frames for the conduct of reviews; requiring appellants to demonstrate that overturning the AER's decision wouldn't be of serious detriment to the long-term interests of consumers; providing more flexible arrangements for consumers to participate in reviews; introducing a binding rate-of-return guideline, with certain elements of the AER's decision not subject to merits reviews; limiting the time frames in which material can be submitted to the regulator; and providing that the costs of reviews, including those of the AER, be borne by network businesses. And, of course, it must be all about tightening and clarifying the grounds of review. That is what was proposed in COAG in December 2016. They are sensible reforms that ought to be implemented. But instead the government has thrown out the baby with the bathwater, and I'm concerned that the long-term interests of consumers will be deleteriously impacted by this. It's worth noting the other concerns of Frontier Economics that the regulatory framework and role of the LMR—limited merits reviews—would remove consumer rights to challenge the merits of AER determinations as much as those of regulated businesses. If the AER has got it wrong on so many changes then removing the limited merits review, removing entirely this safeguard, this check and balance—it should be modified, I acknowledge, along the lines that COAG suggested in December 2016. We are going down a path where my fear is that it will lead to more chaos, more uncertainty and, ultimately, to higher prices in the energy markets. Merits reviews can help clarify how complex regulatory rules and economic and legal principles should be interpreted and applied. We are going to lose that by abolishing these limited merits review. The AER have a very poor track record of applying the rules correctly, and we have seen that by the fact that they've failed time and again. My concern is that this will deter efficient investment, which is bad for consumers in the longer term and which will only exacerbate our energy prices. So these are matters that I believe ought to be considered. I do not believe this is good public policy. I understand why the government has done it, but this will not solve the problem in the longer term. What will solve the problem in the longer term is to ensure that we have a clear framework for investment. My preference is the emissions intensity scheme, which—shown through economic modelling that the Prime Minister, as opposition leader, and I commissioned back in 2009—would have a lower impact on prices, give greater certainty to investment and ensure that we meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This is very important from an environmental point of view and also ties in with getting the best economic impact to reduce the price of power and to reduce power price increases. My concern is that this is a sugar hit which might have some short-term consequences that seem on the surface to be good but which mean that in the longer term we will end up paying for it with uncertainty, with a lack of protection for consumers and by getting rid of any degree of accountability on the Australian Energy Regulator in the way that it makes its decisions. Removing this limited merits review process will not be good for consumers in the longer term, and that is why I have very serious concerns about this legislation. 11:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to bring in a call for a return to sanity—a return to sanity, because I can see young people in the visitors gallery who will pay for the follies that we are embarking on and that we have embarked on for the last 10 years. Their parents are already paying for this suicide of manufacturing and this suicide of industry. We need a return to sanity. This Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, which the government is promoting, abolishes the ability of the Australian Competition Tribunal to review certain Australian Energy Regulator decisions. The review power was first established in 2008 under Prime Minister Rudd, who brought it in and made things unaffordable because of a fundamental belief that he pushed. It was a lie. We now have a regulator regulating the regulator. So we've got costs on costs on costs. As I said, this review power was first established in 2008. It has been reviewed since then. In 2012 it was found to have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. In 2013 amendments were made to try and improve the operation of the regime. In 2016 there was another review, and we found that it was still a bureaucratic nightmare. We have a situation now in which a regulator, with less knowledge than the organisation it's regulating, is regulating that organisation. It's a competition tribunal, not an energy regulator. Let me read from the explanatory memorandum: The regime was reviewed again in 2016 by the COAG Energy Council's Senior Committee of Officials, following applications for review of 12 of 20 of the AER's post-2013 electricity and gas decisions (in which affected businesses sought a total of around $7.3 billion in additional revenue) and two of the ERA's gas decisions. The review again identified a number of significant regulatory failures, including that LMR reviews of economic regulatory decisions remain a routine part of the regulatory process— in other words, everything is getting challenged, everything; it's just another cost— involve significant costs to all participants, continue to present barriers to meaningful consumer participation, lead to significant regulatory and price uncertainty, and are failing to demonstrate outcomes that serve the long term interests of consumers. We've seen that because in the last 10 years power prices have doubled. That is largely due, in addition to the burden of intermittent energy supplies, to overregulation. So the view is that the regime is failing to achieve its intent of ensuring that better energy regulation decisions are made, and the delays, costs and uncertainty associated with the regime are increasing pressure on electricity prices. In other words, regulation is costing the consumers, costing families, and therefore the government has made the decision to get rid of it entirely. I want to add, Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm—and I know you personally can see this—that government regulation decreases quality of service and product and increases costs. This is a mess that needs to be sorted out. Let's get back to basics. We all share common traits, and one of those human traits is care. We must celebrate that because humans are wonderful; human spirit leads to the creativity that enables everything we see in this room. Two hundred years ago poverty prevailed right around the world. We had short life spans, even in the industrialised world. We had kings, then, who did not live as well as people on welfare today. That is a celebration of humanity. We have improved life spans, costs of living and the health, security and safety of people right around the world. In some places, fortunately—and we are a part of that western civilisation—it has been far more successful than in other places in the world. 'We' is the important word, because, while creativity is important and ideas are sexy, it is the sharing of ideas that is even sexier. Freedom is essential to human progress—that creativity, that spirit, that relentless drive to improve things, to improve humanity because we care. It's alive across Australia, but it's being choked. There are eight steps to human progress. The first is freedom to let that creativity flourish, to let that creativity blossom on top of other people's creativity. It becomes exponential. The second thing is that we need a rule of law. The third is stable constitutional governance to provide for succession. The fourth is secure property rights. That is fundamental to responsibility. The fifth is honest money. The sixth is fair, efficient, low, tax systems. The seventh is strong families. There are two basic systems or structures in human society today. The first is the nation state and the second is the family—perhaps I should say the first is the family and the second is the nation state, both of which are being destroyed. The eighth key to human progress is cheap, efficient, affordable, reliable, secure energy. All of those eight steps are under threat. It is fundamental to understand these things because when I first joined the Senate I promised that I would seek to increase accountability and to work on reducing cost of living and improving security, both materially and economically and also with regard to personal safety and terrorism. The government has three responsibilities: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. And freedom must be protected for continuing human progress. Let's look at that. As to food: farmers' property rights have been stolen—stolen in this country by a Liberal Prime Minister. Who would have thought that a Liberal Prime Minister would steal something that is fundamental to Liberal philosophy? It was government that did that. It was Prime Minister John Howard, trying to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, who stole farmers' property rights by colluding with then Premier Peter Beattie and Bob Carr in New South Wales. I'm currently Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, and it is quite clear that government action, government policy, quite often takes farmers to the brink, and then the receivers are called in. We have the world's largest island. We have the world's largest commercial fishing zone—or we had. We have the largest continental-shelf fishing zone in the world, and yet our tiny population of 24 million imports almost three-quarters of the seafood we eat. Housing is a real problem for all young people right across this country. A study in New South Wales by the housing industry some years ago showed that 50 per cent of the cost of a house is tax. As to taxation: the Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures in the late 1990s and early 2000s said that a person earning the average income pays 68 per cent of that income to government for rates, levies, fees, charges, special charges, special fees and special taxes. Government is sucking the lifeblood out of people. On energy: we have the world's cleanest coal; we have the ability to use cheap coal. We have the resource of cheap hydro, which is even cheaper than coal. And yet, because of the policies that have been pushed in this country, based on a lie, we now have foreign powers producing electricity using our coal, and selling it more cheaply than can our manufacturers, our businessmen and our farmers. We have regulation throughout this country. So what has gone wrong? Let's define the problem. John Howard said that he would comply with the Kyoto Protocol but would not sign it. In fact, to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, he introduced three actions. The first was, as I said, to steal farmers' property rights, raise the cost of food and destroy the farmers' property values. The second was to put in place a renewable energy target. He was the man who brought into place the renewable energy target. Sure, Tony Abbott increased it, but it was John Howard who brought it in. And, third, John Howard was the first leader of a major party in this country to propose an emissions trading scheme—not Kevin Rudd, not Bob Brown; John Howard. Let us look then beyond John Howard. I have to admire—I do admire—compliment and appreciate Senator Ian Macdonald for raising the truth last December, on the last sitting Monday before Christmas, when he admitted, sadly, that this parliament has never had a debate on the science of climate, and yet we are now pushing policies that are costing families, individuals and companies billions of dollars a year and are destroying jobs. Now we'll go to a government agency, CSIRO. I have been constantly calling on the CSIRO to provide me with evidence that human production of carbon dioxide is affecting global climate. The CSIRO has failed to provide any evidence of cause by human production of carbon dioxide. What's more, the CSIRO has failed to even identify anything unusual in the climate or anything, to be more specific, that is unprecedented. There is nothing unusual happening. Empirical evidence implies not only measured data and observed data but a logical process that proves cause and effect. We have seen some people put forward data on temperature and data on the amount of carbon dioxide we produce but nothing that shows cause and effect. Indeed, we had the Chief Scientist in May respond to Senator Macdonald's admirable question as to what the impact on global climate of shutting down all of Australia's carbon dioxide production—stopping all of our transport, stopping all of our industry, killing all our beef and sheep animals—would be. The Chief Scientist, after beating around the bush, was asked by Senator Macdonald to get to the point, and the Chief Scientist said it would be 'virtually nothing' from shutting down all production of carbon dioxide, let alone five per cent. I hear talk about 'the scientists say'. Well, in fact, the scientists don't tell us that carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing temperature. The study produced by Cook at the University of Queensland, my old university— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator McAllister on a point of order. Senator McAllister 121628 I have only just entered the chamber, but I had thought we were debating a bill about competition and consumer laws, and Senator Roberts, in the time I have been here, has been talking— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator, that is not a point of order. Senator McAllister 121628 It does go to relevance, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I ask you to draw— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 You're asking what? Senator McAllister 121628 I'm asking you to draw his attention to the matter before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 I will draw Senator Roberts's attention to the matter that we're debating here, but that's really not a valid point of order. People, in discussing bills, have wideranging issues to address. Please continue, Senator Roberts. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I understand it is not a point of order, and I understand that you're drawing my attention to it. I will make one more point before coming to the point that is at the core of this bill. We're told 97 per cent of climate scientists say that carbon dioxide from human activity is detrimentally affecting global climate. The reality of that study, when one goes into the details and the data by John Cook at the University of Queensland, shows that the actual number of scientists, the percentage of scientists claiming global warming will be due to production of carbon dioxide from human activity, is 0.3 per cent. But, more importantly, it doesn't matter if it is everyone if there is no evidence. And not one of those 0.3 per cent of scientists has ever produced any evidence that we are affecting global temperature or global climate. We see instead of science—from the Greens, from the Labor Party and, sadly, from some Liberals—an appeal to name. Well, the CSIRO told us, and yet it hasn't got any evidence. We see calls of ridicule. We see smears, we see labels, but we don't see any evidence of cause. Why? Because these people pushing these claims are not scientists. Scientists are those who follow the scientific process—that is the dictionary definition. Someone with a bachelor of science is not a scientist if he or she doesn't follow the scientific process. Universities now teach people what to think, not how to think, and we see government funding being wasted there. What I'm bringing your attention to, Madam Acting Deputy President, is that regulation based on nonsense is destroying industry, destroying jobs and raising costs of living astronomically in this country. And I then ask myself: is it malice? Is it deceit? No, it is stupidity and gutlessness. Political correctness has now meant that people are afraid of speaking out, and, as someone from a remarkable cost-of-living summit held by our office in Brisbane on Friday from our office said, we're paying the bloody bills—the people of Australia. It is impossible for regulators to be all-knowing, and yet that is exactly what is needed for a regulator to be effective. Regulation has been aided and abetted in the destruction of Australian industry by the shovelling of tens of millions of dollars, or hundreds of millions of dollars, to parasitic intermittent energy providers. Warren Buffett, the world's greatest investor, said there is no sense at all in investing in wind energy unless it's heavily subsidised, and that is why he invests in wind energy. Greg Combet, the former director of a union super fund company and the former secretary of the ACTU, once he was parachuted into this place, allocated the shovelling of tens of millions of dollars to the union super funds based on wind farms. The best government is small government. We ask all Australians across our communities and across our nation: who knows what's best? Who knows what we the people need? Who can best spend our money, our family's money, and who can best look after us and our families? The answer is not government. It's individuals. It's small business. It's free people. We now have a call to return to Australian values, mateship, a fair go, care, being fair dinkum, truth and openness, law and respect for people. This bill starts to redress the mess that has been created by Kevin Rudd's government, followed by Julia Gillard's government, based on a lie that they put forward. We see John Howard and the Liberals as gutless and not able to stand up to the Labor Party onslaught of deceit on climate. We see Nick Xenophon and his team as ignorant of the facts on climate. We see the Labor Party and the Greens as dishonest on climate. Big government is the worst way. Energy prices have doubled in 10 years. Reliability has reduced. Security has been killed. And we see the state of South Australia now. Thanks to the Nick Xenophon Team and the Greens, including Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, we see the government now relying upon the herd mentality, not facts. We see the deceit and the dishonesty of the Labor-Greens coalition on energy, we see the Liberals being gutless and we see this weakness and this dishonesty combining to destroy Australian jobs. Our last car will be made in this country next month. That's it. Our farmers are doing it tough because of cost of living. Food processing is now tough. We need to return to honesty, and this bill, by at least removing one of the parasitic entities from this parasitic process, is a good start. But we need much, much more. We need a return to truth. 12:09 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I'm unsure whether I'm the only person in this chamber who has grave concerns about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, because I really haven't established what everyone's position is as yet, but I do have concerns about it because I feel the government is simply tinkering around the edges in respect of electricity pricing and the catastrophe that has befallen our National Electricity Market because of government actions and decision-making. In fact, I have been on the record as saying that every problem with our electricity market is a response to government policies at various state and federal levels. I regret that they have been aided and abetted across the political spectrum. If we go through this chamber, it is the Liberal Party who have continued to push the renewable energy target over the last five or six years. It was the Labor Party before that who were intent on an emissions trading scheme, subsidising wind farms and so on. We've had the Nick Xenophon Team, who we know have recognised the catastrophe attached to a 50 per cent renewable energy target by virtue of their subtle ditching of their support for it in their policy position after causing and being instrumental in advocating for it in their home state of South Australia. The Greens, of course, are well on the record about how renewables can save the world, but they won't save people, unfortunately. The great problem we have with electricity in this country is that government has skewed the entire process to such an extent that unreliable and intermittent energy such as wind and solar is competing on a tilted playing field. It is not a level playing field. When the sun shines and the wind blows, yes, they can generate electricity at a minimal cost, which only makes base load energy generation completely unprofitable. But, of course, when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining you need base load energy production, which is not viable because it can't get into the market 24/7. This is a tilted playing field. This is a complete bias that has been a disaster for my home state of South Australia, where we had a five-day blackout in some areas. Rather than admit defeat, rather than admit that the renewable energy target and the schemes they have implemented there have been a disaster, what have they done? They have doubled down with more idiocy by paying $50 million to one of the great scammers, one of the great rent seekers of the world at the moment: a man by the great name of Elon Musk. They paid $50 million so he can install a battery which would power the state for a few minutes in the event that there's a catastrophic breakdown. But, on top of that, because they're coming into an election in March next year, they thought that we can't have any blackouts over the summer months, so they thought they'd install diesel generators—the most polluting form of electricity generation in the world. They're going to install them at the cost of $50 million to run for this summer and $50 million for the next summer, spending $100 million to avoid having blackouts over summer, to prop up and support their election campaign. I wish I could say it was better on the other side of the chamber with respect to the South Australian government, but the Liberal Party there had just announced their battery policy, which they got hopelessly wrong in their calculations, of course. Instead of spending $50 million on a central battery, they're going to be spending $100 million subsidising batteries for other people. The simple fact is that batteries are uneconomical at the current electricity prices. I've done the research. I've done all the sums. They simply don't add up. They also don't address the limited life span. They don't address the disposal aspects, the production or anything else. They've fallen in love with this green dream, which is a disaster. And what do we see federally? Of course we know there are those who have green theology in this space, but federally, I have read this week, the current government's approach to the crisis is to give you a couple of movie tickets so you can switch off the electricity and air conditioner at home and then go to Hoyts or whatever it be and enjoy the cool air that they're generating in their theatres. This is just absurd. This place has descended into madness when this is the sort of tinkering that is going on. Of course, when governments and politicians of any stripe recognise the disaster, the crisis that's hitting them in the face, they go tinkering around the edges, and then they seek to blame other bodies instead of themselves. And this is what this bill actually does. This bill abolishes the limited merits review scheme. The limited merits review scheme is simply a process by which a person or body other than the primary decision-maker reconsiders the facts, law and policy aspects of the original decision and determines what the correct and preferable decision is. It's a review scheme that doesn't go through a judicial review, which only looks at the facts of law. It's about the intent, the outcomes and the processes that go with it. I think this is a reasonable solution when you've got such competing interests as government, who are only concerned with their electoral outcomes, and private enterprise, which is only concerned with making the biggest buck it can. I have no doubt at all—all my research indicates it—that the electricity generators in this country have been gaming the system and ripping people off to an unbelievable extent. They have done it through shoddy and short-term privatisation schemes which didn't place any limits on some of the monopoly-owned assets and the returns that can be generated by them in respect of government privatisations. They've also done it because they are the biggest players in the electricity market. If you're the person who supplies that market and you're one of the biggest players in betting on whether the price of the product is going to rise or fall, you have a distinct advantage. If you've got several gas-fired power stations or some wind farms turning, you can effectively say, 'Well, we're going to shut that down for maintenance but, before we do, we're going to buy a whole bunch of futures in the electricity market', because you know the price will go up. This is what they have been doing. That's where the market failure has taken place here. It's because of government regulation. I get concerned that the government are blaming the limited merits review scheme simply because they haven't been winning the bets. They haven't been winning the arguments or the cases which say that maybe there are some flaws on both sides. But I'm not convinced abolishing it is the correct answer. I think the best answer is actually what's proposed by COAG. There have been a number of reviews into the limited merits review scheme, and in December 2016 they did note it was failing to meet its policy intent and was leading to higher prices for consumers, but there was no consensus for it to be gone. What they wanted to do was to tighten and clarify the grounds for review. They wanted higher financial thresholds for leave which apply to individual grounds for review; they wanted reviews to be conducted on the papers rather than through expensive and adversarial oral hearings; they wanted to introduce strict time frames for the conduct of reviews requiring appellants to demonstrate that overturning the AER's decision would not be of serious detriment to the long-term interests of consumers; they wanted to provide more flexible arrangements for consumers to participate in reviews; they wanted to introduce a binding rate of return guideline; they wanted to limit the time frames in which material can be submitted to the regulator; and they wanted to provide that costs of reviews, including those of the AER, would be borne by network businesses. They all seem reasonable sorts of grounds to experiment with before deciding to abolish something. Of course, the government see it differently because they want to cling to the lifeline that they are actually trying to do something to lower electricity prices. So the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, responded by reaffirming the decision that the Turnbull government want to abolish it. He says that the decisions subsequent to the Federal Court decisions in 2017, which I haven't mentioned, will increase electricity prices for New South Wales customers by about $3 billion. What's increasing the prices for New South Wales electricity customers and for every customer around the country is the fact that the renewable energy target was introduced. If you look at a graph of electricity prices and supply, almost immediately, as soon as the renewable energy target was introduced, the prices start escalating. They have been going up and up and up. It's simply because $3 billion a year is channelled into inefficient, uneconomic wind and solar farms in this grand experiment to say that we can somehow do it better than everywhere else. Let me tell you, everywhere else this has been tried, it has been an abject failure. I was told this on the weekend: for all of you who think solar panels don't work at night, apparently in Spain they can, because the subsidies for solar panels are so good and so big that they can afford to turn floodlights on to fuel the solar panels to generate electricity, because they get paid more than it actually costs them. If that is true, that is the height of insanity. Yet that's the sort of thing we're going down the path of doing. In Germany, they had this grand green experiment. They've ditched it and they're going back and saying, 'We need some regular base-load power.' It's the same in this country: $3 billion a year in subsidies, $60 billion between 2010 and 2030. That would pay for 25 new low-emissions coal-fired power stations, 800 megawatts each—about $2.2 billion. It would pay for 25 of them. And, for those of you who are those climate greenies who want to sign up to the Paris accord and do all these crazy things, that would meet our Paris Agreement requirements as well. It would reduce our emissions by an extent that would comply with our Paris requirements and agreement. So we could satisfy the best of both worlds. You could fuel low-emissions base-load power, if that's what you wanted to do. You could meet your international climate change agreement, if that's what you wanted to do, and you could restore to Australia the great competitive advantage that we've had in this country, which has been cheap and reliable electricity. Our greatest competitive advantage has been cheap and reliable electricity, and we have squandered it because of government bureaucracy and decision-making. Now, if you don't want to spend $60 billion on those coal-fired power stations, I've got a better idea: as a government, you could actually provide some contractual certainty to allow other people to build them so that they were private and not government owned. They wouldn't cost the government anything; it wouldn't have to borrow any money. We could have this, and it would increase competitiveness into our international market. But what does it need in order to provide contractual certainty? It needs the understanding upon which they are building these power stations today being applied consistently for the duration of that. So there shouldn't be ad hoc policy changes coming from one side of government or another to satisfy the latest whims and demands of the international class. And why limit yourself to coal-fired power? Why not examine the case for nuclear power? A nuclear power station of the same ilk might cost you about $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion or $9 billion. It's much more an upfront cost, but the whole essence is that you have less ongoing cost in order to do it from the point of view of fuel et cetera. And there are other avenues in reactive power as well, such as thorium, which is meeting with a great deal of research and encouragement at the moment. There are also modular nuclear reactors, which are much more efficient and which can be placed in regional and remote areas. There are so many options and alternatives here which will achieve what is in Australia's national interest and which will not impact on the climate in any way, shape or form, for those who are concerned about it. But tinkering around the edges is going to do nothing. Giving tickets to Thelma and Louise or the latest Star Wars flick is not going to save anyone. It's not going to save the country's electricity grid at all. Abolishing the limited merits review system is tinkering around the edges. It is, some would argue, unnecessary to have it. I would argue that it's an inconvenience for the government at the moment, because they've been losing cases. But if you review it and reform it, I think it's completely reasonable to have a check and balance on a monopoly operation or organisation which perhaps is going to be influenced politically by the political dictates and demands of the day. We have a fiasco in this place and in the electricity market in Australia. It is a fiasco entirely of the government's making. I will say one thing about an individual who got this entirely right in this place—there's a whole bunch of people who are prepared to claim credit for the things that they don't have any credit for or that they shouldn't take any credit for. The one person in my time in this place who consistently belled this cat and said, 'We are sleepwalking into a disaster,' is former senator Ron Boswell. Ron Boswell, every single time we got onto electricity, stood up and warned us about the perils of the Renewable Energy Target and about the dangers of it. He was dismissed; he was forgotten; he was laughed at and he was mocked, but he was absolutely right in this respect. It's easy to forget that; people have this change of heart. I have noticed in recent times that there are some notable public figures who seem to have had an amazing change of heart in this space. That is all well and good, but the people who matter most are the ones who do the battle when the battling is hard. Ron Boswell was right; I think we're wise to heed his words now. We need to abolish the Renewable Energy Target. We need to deregulate effectively—not renationalise but deregulate—the electricity market in this country. We need more competition, we need more contractual certainty, we need more coal-fired power, we need more gas-fired power, and we in this place need to look at uranium and nuclear power and every other form of energy. If you insist upon going down the renewable energy route, you can't allow intermittent and unreliable power to be subsidised; you need to make sure that anyone that's going to be feeding energy into our grid has the ability to provide it in a consistent, synchronous manner. That means it's got to be directly fed into the grid. It's got to be able to be either stored or supplied for 24 hours a day when it's at capacity, because anything else is to really put Australia at a huge disadvantage. Finally, in regard to those who are worried about carbon dioxide emissions in Australia's electricity generation, Australia accounts for 1.3 per cent, I think, of global carbon dioxide emissions. We could cut it back to zero and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to the climate. We all know that, even if some don't want to admit it. But our electricity market is something like 0.4 per cent. It's negligible, and we are denying ourselves the most important and most valuable commodity for any developed country, electricity, in the name of some global green scam that has been exposed again and again and again. Let's not tinker around the edges; let's fix the real problem. I may stand alone in saying that this bill is unnecessary, but, nonetheless, common sense eventually will prevail and a government—it probably won't be a Liberal or a Labor one, but a government—will see sense in this and restore some confidence, faith, certainty and security for the Australian people by getting out of the electricity market. 12:26 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Not enough dispatchable power—that's what's causing electricity price spikes, rising prices and the prospect of blackouts this summer. In case anyone did not accept this bleedingly obvious point, the Australian Energy Market Operator has recently pointed it out in a report to the government. And what has caused this insufficient dispatchable power is decades of government penalties, threats and bans against the only forms of affordable, dispatchable power available: power from fossil fuels and nuclear power. The Renewable Energy Target must be abolished, a guarantee against future carbon pricing must be provided to prospective investors in new coal-fired power stations, and the ban against nuclear power must be lifted. To provide immediate relief, the GST on electricity, which is an essential service, must be removed. It sounds simple, and it is as simple as that. The urgency of this call to action cannot be exaggerated. Price spikes, rising prices, and blackouts are not just inconvenient; they are job destroying and life threatening. A similar story applies to natural gas. Gas prices have jumped despite our rich gas supplies, which are stuck in the ground due to evidence-free state bans and the Commonwealth government's unwillingness to coerce these states to lift these bans. Instead, we see the government fiddle at the edges. It calls electricity companies into a room and tells them to write letters to their customers; it calls gas companies into a room to tell them to divert gas to domestic markets even if this means reneging on gas export contracts; and it introduces bills like the bill before us today, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Reviews) Bill 2017. This bill removes the right to have the decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator regarding the price of energy transmission reviewed. Prices for the service provided by electricity transmission lines and gas pipelines are decided by the Australian Energy Regulator and reviewable by the Australian Competition Tribunal. The government has identified no flaw in the method used by the Australian Competition Tribunal to review the price regulation decisions of the Australian Energy Regulator. But, because the Australian Competition Tribunal has, on occasion, ruled that the regulated transmission prices have been set too low, the government has decided to wipe out the avenue for review by the Australian Competition Tribunal. This preference for regulating transmission prices below what a review might consider appropriate may suppress electricity and gas prices in the immediate term—and this is surely the government's motivation in introducing this bill—but it risks delivering unreasonably low returns to businesses that have invested in transmission capacity. This will wipe out incentives to invest in expanding transmission capacity, leading to reduced transmission capacity, less reliable supply and higher prices for years to come. It's robbing energy users to provide some brief relief now. The government can and must do better than this. I oppose this bill and call on the government to free up the future supply of electricity and gas instead. 12:31 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. Senator Di Natale has already outlined that the Greens support this bill, for a number of reasons. We have just been sitting in the chamber listening to the long-drawn-out arguments—the whack-job arguments—from Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Bernardi, people who don't believe in the science of climate change and don't believe that Australians have the right to proper investment in clean, renewable energy. Senator Roberts carried on his usual spray about how climate change isn't real because, well, Senator Roberts doesn't believe it to be so—kind of like Senator Roberts's own citizenship scenario, I'd suggest: he doesn't believe he's a dual citizen, so therefore it mustn't be the case, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. So we will put that aside. And it may have been Senator Roberts's last speech in this place. He did cover a big breadth of topics, from the family unit, gay marriage, freedom of speech and freedom of thought to climate change, all to talk about electricity prices. He did also throw in that people who live on welfare live better than kings did 200 years ago. I'm not sure how many people out there living on the disability pension or on the pension or on social security benefits feel as though they live like kings. But, there you go—that is this representative of One Nation from Queensland: welfare recipients live like kings! I respectfully disagree. The scary thing, however, is that it is not just these whack-job arguments from people like Senator Roberts. These are also arguments put forward by former prime ministers, like former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who, of course, has his own whacked-out ideas about climate change: he thinks it's crap, doesn't believe it, and asks, 'What's the problem with climate change anyway?' because maybe it's better to die in the heat than it is to die in the cold. And that is the level of maturity and understanding being trumpeted by our former Prime Minister—overseas, no less. I mean, he is giving an embarrassing name to Australia in his international gallivanting. One Nation's obsession, however, against action on climate change and against people who take the decision to put solar panels on their roofs is what I really wanted to speak about today in relation to this bill, because we know that millions and millions of Australians have opted to put solar panels on their roofs, and that's because they know that it drives down their power bills and is also a really good way to help the planet and to reduce pollution. In fact, in Pauline Hanson's and Malcolm Roberts's own state of Queensland, 34 per cent of households have solar on their roofs—34 per cent; that is the largest in the country. And Australia is now at the front—it is No. 1 in the world—when it comes to solar on households' rooftops. People love their solar panels. They love being able to invest in their own creation of energy, reduce their power bills and help when it comes to tackling climate change and global warming. But, of course, Pauline Hanson wants to rip all of this away. She doesn't believe that people should be supported through the renewable energy target. She doesn't believe that people should have support for putting solar on their roofs from feed-in tariffs. She doesn't believe in the support mechanisms through the ARENA or indeed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. She wants this parliament to junk all of that. If she had her way, Pauline Hanson would rip solar panels off people's houses. That is how obsessed she is against renewable energy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Williams on a point of order. Senator Williams I0V A consistent stand on a point of order must be taken. When Senator Hanson-Young is speaking, she refers to senators by their christian names and not their correct titles. It is so disrespectful. I ask you to bring this to her attention, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Hanson-Young, I remind you of the standing orders. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U If Senator Pauline Hanson had her way, she would rip solar panels off every house and rooftop across the country. That is how obsessed Senator Hanson is when it comes to renewable energy and to people who are trying to do their best to reduce their power bills and reduce pollution at the same time. Thirty-four per cent of Queenslanders have solar on their roofs. Senator Pauline Hanson, One Nation, want to rip them off, rip away that money and rip away that support, and, instead, spend billions of dollars building coal-fired power stations. How are we going to pay for that? People's taxes are going to go up. People's taxes are going to go up because no bank and no investors want to build these things. So we're going to rip money out of the hands of regular, everyday Australians and hand it to big coal companies so that they can create dirty power and charge households and small businesses exorbitant bills in order to power their homes and their shopfronts. Senator Pauline Hanson wants to take money from everyday Australians and give it to coal companies, and she will increase taxes on her way through. This is the type of loony, whack-job policy coming from One Nation and now being supported by people like Senator Cory Bernardi and our own former Prime Minister Tony Abbott—whack job after whack job after whack job! Thank goodness Australians are smarter than this. They love their solar on their roofs and they love their renewable energy target. The poll out today in The Australian newspaper shows huge support for supporting renewables—huge support. Sixty-three per cent of people across the country want the renewable energy target and support for renewables to stay in place because they want cheaper power and they want it to be reliable. They also want to reduce carbon emissions and reduce pollution. Whether the whack jobs in this place believe it or not, climate change is real, it's getting worse and Australians want us to do something about it. Senator Malcolm Roberts of course stood here in the chamber and gave us one of his amazing, wide-ranging speeches about how terrible everything is because he doesn't believe in it. Senator Roberts, your own empirical evidence lacking in your own citizenship case means that that may have been your final speech in this place. I'm not sure how we're going to cope without a good giggle on a Monday morning! 12:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. I want to say at the outset that Labor supports the bill and supports the abolition of the limited merits review. Labor referred the bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. We did it not to needlessly delay the bill or to frustrate customers or the energy industry but to ask genuine questions of industry, consumers and unions about what the impacts of this bill would be. The inquiry received 12 submissions. The committee held a short hearing in Melbourne just a couple of weeks ago and received evidence from energy companies, consumer groups, unions, energy industry experts and the government. A number of critical points came out of the evidence to the inquiry. I want to thank the secretariat for their assistance in preparing the report and thank all those who gave submissions and gave evidence. It was important to take a moment to hear from all sides about the role of limited merits review—the current problems faced by consumers and unions and possible alternative approaches. I, for one, feel that it is never a good idea to simply abolish something without examining what the alternatives might be. In this case, it is clear that the limited merits review process appears to be slanted in the interests of network companies rather than the long-term interests of consumers. While it may have been possible for the government to make amendments to the process, it's chosen to abolish the LMR regime. I note that the government introduced this bill to the parliament in August this year, after an announcement by the minister in June. Since its introduction, the minister has spoken on a number of occasions of the urgent need for this bill to pass. This is so that, after being in power for over four years, this government can say it's doing something to relieve pressure on energy prices for households. Energy prices have increased 63 per cent, on top of inflation, over the past 10 years. This is so that, after another year of indecision and infighting, the government can say it is putting pressure on energy companies. This is so that, after a year of being the minister, the member for Kooyong can hold doorstops and proudly claim to be a man of action. Yet this bill will do nothing to put immediate downward pressure on power prices. As a result of this bill passing, power prices will not drop tomorrow or in fact next week. Importantly in this energy debate, this bill won't miraculously solve this government's infighting and it won't end the crusade by the member for Warringah. And it won't change the basic fact that this government has been in power for over four years and that for four years this government, under the current Prime Minister and the member for Warringah before him, has left this country without a clear energy policy. So what is limited merits review? It was introduced 2008 following amendment of the national energy laws. Limited merits review was part of an attempt to balance outcomes between competing interests and to allow parties affected by decisions of the Australian Energy Regulator appropriate recourse to have decisions reviewed. Under the national energy laws, the Australian Energy Regulator sets the prices that businesses may charge for, and the revenue they may earn from, the provision of electricity network services and access to covered pipelines. The use of the regulator in setting the prices recognises the natural monopoly in the supply of electricity and gas. The current process by the AER arrives at its revenue and accesses determinations in lengthy and extensive inquiry processes, analysis and consultation. If an affected party or person disagrees with an AER determination, they may seek leave of the Australian Competition Tribunal to apply for a limited merits review of the determination. In making its determination, the Competition Tribunal must either affirm or vary the original decision, or set aside the decision and remit the matter back to the AER. After a limited merits review process concludes, affected parties may then seek a judicial review of the decisions. Even with these qualifications and the intention that the LMR is used to seek a resolution to complex disputes, use of limited merits review has become a routine part of the regulatory process and has contributed to increased energy prices for consumers. The limited merits review regime has been reviewed by the COAG Energy Council twice—in 2012 and again in 2016. The 2012 review found the limited merits review regime did not adequately address all stakeholders' interests, especially those of consumers. It was excessively legalistic in its approach and was costlier, with cases taking longer than anticipated. As a result of the first review, the LMR regime was amended in 2013 to realign the processes and threshold to better incorporate the views of consumers. The second review, in 2016, resulted in agreement between COAG Energy Council ministers that the limited merits review regime was failing to meet its policy intent and had contributed to higher prices for consumers. However, there was no consensus on the Commonwealth's position that the LMR regime should be abolished. Instead, a wideranging set of amendments were agreed to in principle to enable significant and immediate reform to again improve the processes and thresholds to better meet the long-term interests of consumers. Despite the COAG Energy Council's position of agreement in principle to amend the LMR regime, the minister in June this year announced he'd be moving forward alone with its abolition. As the member for Port Adelaide said in his address to the other place, it was pretty clear, looking at the national debate surrounding the COAG Energy Council over the past few years, that the loudest proponents of the abolition of LMR were Labor state governments in Victoria and South Australia, and the New South Wales Labor opposition. In fact, the strongest resistance to any abolition of the LMR came from the New South Wales Liberal government, particularly when Mr Mike Baird was the Premier. I want to return now to the Senate inquiry and address a number of important points made by witnesses. First, the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions expressed concern that the bill is being used as a blunt instrument to address high energy prices for Australian households and businesses, with little consideration for any unintended impacts on employees. The ETU gave one particularly strong piece of evidence that, as a consequence of a Competition Tribunal limited merits review in 2015, an estimated 2,000 electricity maintenance jobs had been saved across New South Wales and the ACT and the condition of those networks had avoided serious neglect. The ETU explained that if network companies are forced to operate below recovery costs for the efficient operation of their businesses then workers will have very little protection when businesses decide the easiest path to reducing their costs is by downsizing, or by terminating maintenance workers' employment and re-employing them under a contractor. While this may be seen by some as an indirect matter, the rise of contracting and insecure work is of real concern to millions of Australians. Under a contractor workers would face a pay cut and less secure working hours, and the general conditions that they're working under would be less safe. The ETU advised that, in their experience, employment under a contractor is more precarious, and safety may be compromised through the drive to get jobs completed. This may be seen by some as efficient and driving down costs, but lowering costs should not be done at the expense of the working conditions and safety of Australian workers. So what is the virtue in it? I can guarantee the energy network company will still find a way to extract the same rate of return for its shareholders. In the case raised by the ETU and the ACTU, the ability of the company and the union to take the determination to the Competition Tribunal for a limited merits review enabled a higher revenue determination and those jobs to be saved. I note that the AER responded to this evidence by saying that it sets an overall revenue allowance and that it is up to the business to decide how it operates, including how much money it spends on operations and maintenance. I also note that the Department of the Environment and Energy stated that an impact on the workforce is a commercial decision on the part of the business concerned. While both responses from the regulator and the department were expected, it is disappointing and downright disgusting that workers can be used as cannon fodder by huge businesses. Whether they are energy network operators, shipping companies, manufacturers or whoever, I for one will stand here and say that this isn't right and that I, together with people across the country, will be watching the new process of the AER with great interest. With that, I want to move on to the need for greater stakeholder participation in AER determinations, particularly those for consumers and unions. While the department noted in evidence that the very best place for consumers to engage is the regulator's primary decision process—and I note that the AER gave evidence that there have been positive changes in the engagement between some network businesses, their customers and the AER—the AER also indicated that it is working to ensure that consumers are fully included in its decision-making processes. Further, the minister has allocated an additional $67 million over the next four years to the AER. However, the clear evidence from the inquiry was that, while engagement with stakeholders was increasing, it was not always adequate. As such, I proposed a recommendation to the committee's report that reads: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government gives consideration to amending the statements of expectations for the Australian Energy Regulator to emphasise that more effective engagement of consumers, relevant unions and stakeholders is expected. In preparing this recommendation, it was brought to my attention that the government hasn't produced a statement of expectations for the Australian Energy Regulator since 2014. Such statements are often issued at the start of a new parliament or as policies change. As such, if the minister is to present a new statement, it should include specific direction to emphasise that effective engagement with consumers and unions is both expected and absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the national energy market, that the current approach of improving empowerment for consumers is welcomed and that there is a need for the AER to do more for consumers and to embed unions into the process. I encourage the minister to look favourably upon this recommendation and to update the parliament on his actions in the coming months. Finally, with the passage of this bill there will still be a review option available: the judicial review. Evidence to the inquiry was quite clear that, while access to judicial review was possible, it was viewed as not being an adequate avenue for redress for industry, and there is concern that key stakeholders such as unions and consumer groups will not have standing within a judicial review and that, if they were to actually get that standing, they may face exorbitant cost orders that would prevent them initially from bringing forth a review. So I welcome the comments from the AER that there is likely to be a need for improvement to the process to ensure standing and provide cost protections for consumer groups in relation to judicial review. However, I'm concerned that the AER again is neglecting the important role of unions in this conversation. They represent tens of thousands of people in the energy sector, and I believe that any moves to improve the process to ensure consumers have standing and are protected from cost orders must be extended to unions and their members. In conclusion, I come back to the minister's urgency to pass this bill. Why is it that this minister is in a huge rush to pass this bill but at the same time is part of a government that has no energy policy, has no ideas for providing long-term certainty to the energy market and wants to abolish the energy supplement for 400,000 aged pensioners, 105,000 carers, 109,000 disability support pensioners, 138,000 single parents and many other income support recipients besides? This is a supplement whose sole purpose is to relieve the pressure from electricity bills on some of the most vulnerable members of the Australian community, a supplement that currently relieves pressure on hundreds of thousands of households' electricity bills, and yet we're here abolishing a review process that will not affect prices tomorrow or next week. Labor supports the limited merits review for electricity and gas networks. It's a regime that has been twice reviewed and, while amendments may have improved the regime, the government has taken the option of abolition. Labor referred this bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, as I said earlier, and it was not to needlessly delay the bill or to frustrate the energy industry but to ask genuine questions of consumers, of the industry and of unions on the impact of this bill. I thank the Senate. 12:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank senators for their various contributions to this debate. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, as has been noted by many, will abolish the limited merits review regime for reviewable regulatory decisions under the national energy laws. What does this mean in plain English? Essentially it means that monopoly network businesses, primarily those running poles and wires systems for our electricity assets around the country, will no longer be able to seek review from the Australian Competition Tribunal of decisions made by the Australian Energy Regulator or the Economic Regulation Authority of Western Australia. Why is this important? It's important because those network businesses, those running the poles and wires distribution around the country, have been gaming the system and have used the appeals process in a manner that to date has increased consumer bills by an estimated $6.5 billion. That's the core number that every senator should keep in their mind through this debate. An extra $6.5 billion has flowed through to households, to businesses, to the Australian economy in extra energy costs as a result of the gaming of this limited merits review regime. Senator Urquhart was just questioning the urgency of this measure. Why has the government criticised the delay that ensued? Because the Labor Party, despite saying they supported it—and I note in this chamber again today that they have acknowledged their support and I thank them for that—referred the bill off to Senate inquiry and delayed its passage through this place. It is important because further decisions in relation to energy distribution around the country are pending. The types of decisions around gas distribution in Victoria for Australian gas networks—around Albury, across Victoria, AusNet Services, Multinet Gas, gas transmission arrangements in both Victoria and Queensland—without this legislation passing, would all potentially be subject to the same type of gaming regime in the future, and that is precisely what the Turnbull government seeks to stop. We want to stop the Australian Competition Tribunal being used, in effect, as a second regulator, because that's the type of behaviour and pattern that we've seen. The default regime has been for network operators to refer decisions off to the tribunal and, indeed, to make that the place where they contest and seek to maximise their incomes and, therefore, their profits. This regime, as has been acknowledged in this debate, has been reviewed previously. There was a review in 2013 from which certain changes were applied. Then there was a subsequent review, in 2016, and that review found significant regulatory failure, particularly in regard to the fact that reviews or appeals remain routine—that is, as I said, the network operators figure they don't need to worry too much about the first process through the Australian Energy Regulator because they will contest whatever they can at the Australian Competition Tribunal to squeeze extra income and extra dollars through that process. It also found there was a failure to deliver regulatory certainty and stability, obviously related to the aforementioned tactics and gaming of those operators. There were continuing barriers to effective consumer representation and participation, which, I note, Senator Urquhart reflected on and the Senate inquiry reflected on. I can assure the Senate that the government is cognisant of the recommendation from the Senate inquiry and that the Minister for the Environment and Energy will write to the Australian Energy Regulator to direct it to examine opportunities to enhance its engagement to ensure a wide range of stakeholders are able to participate in the regulatory decision-making process. It also found that there was an absence of meaningful guidance to ensure the delivery of materially preferable national electricity objective or national gas objective decisions and that, in essence, significant change was required and the focus needed to rightly sit with the proper regulator, the Australian Energy Regulator, in whom there is proper capacity and capability to be able to actually undertake the regulation of this sector. I note, and Senator Urquhart half alluded to this in her comments, that the COAG Energy Council did agree in December 2016 that the limited merits review regime was failing the national interest and was failing electricity consumers around the country. The Turnbull government, given attempts at change and improvement had been made before, took the action to say that we ought to abolish the limited merits review regime and that that was the most simplest, most straightforward way to resolve this issue. This was a position supported, yes, by the Labor governments in South Australia and in Victoria, demonstrating that there is certainly nothing partisan about this. It was opposed, as Senator Urquhart said, by the New South Wales government. She did omit to acknowledge it was also opposed by the Queensland government. Both governments, yes, at that time had a vested financial interest in keeping network revenues high, because at the time New South Wales was selling its networks and Queensland, of course, continues to own those networks. The Queensland government, the Palaszczuk Labor government, has clearly been exposed, basically ripping off consumers around that state at every possible opportunity by seeking to yield and leverage additional dollars through these systems. It's a demonstration that what matters is not the ownership but having effective regulatory regimes in place. That's why we have this legislation before the chamber, to put those effective regulatory regimes in place and to ensure that the system cannot be gamed as effectively in future. Some—I note Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Bernardi—have mused about whether in fact too much power is left in the hands of the Australian Energy Regulator and whether in fact as a result of that there are insufficient safeguards put into the system. I would note in response to them that judicial review remains an option to the parties through this process. This does not remove all oversight in the processes; it simply ensures that a default referral to a competition tribunal will not be in the hands of every network operator in the future. Instead, they will have to undertake the more rigorous process of justifying a judicial review process if they believe the AER has erred in its decision-making. I note also that the Turnbull government are taking steps to strengthen the AER in terms of its undertakings, that we'll inject a further $67.4 million to help it ensure that it reins in poor monopoly energy business network practices, that it is as effective as possible in the decisions that it hands down and that it ensures that we get the best possible deal for consumers, for households, for businesses, in terms of their energy regimes. Why is it that this area of policy, in relation to network businesses, is so important to energy costs? Senators and members of the public need only refer themselves to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's report Retail electricity pricing inquiry preliminary report, which was released publicly today. This report makes very clear why it is that tackling the network issue is perhaps the most important initial step that governments can take to rein in electricity prices. The report says: Network costs were the largest component of retailers' costs in 2015–16, making up around 48 per cent of an average bill charged to a residential customer. So, for all the talk about who generates the power or who sells the power, the middleman, the network costs—those poles, wires, pipes, distribution networks—are the largest component of the costs that consumers, households and businesses are paying, 'around 48 per cent of an average bill'. Further, the report says: … increases in electricity prices over the period from 2007–08 to 2015–16 were primarily driven by higher network costs … So network costs are the largest component of people's bills and are the biggest contributor to the price rises that people are facing around the country. The problem is very clear: network costs have made a substantial impact—the biggest impact—on price rises, and they comprise the largest component of bills that people face. How has the operation of limited merits review, which we're seeking to abolish today, impacted on those costs? The ACCC report further states, on page 113: Compared to the initial determinations made by the AER, the limited merits review process has led to a material increase in network revenues passed through to consumers since it was introduced in 2008. It goes on: For AER decisions up to 2014, Tribunal appeals added around $3.2 billion to network revenues. The government estimates the total addition to network revenues to be closer to $6½ billion. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. Whether it's $6½ billion or $3.2 billion, these are significant additional costs flowing through to households and consumers, and this is because, as a result of the limited merits review regime, the regulators have been given the right to charge higher prices, to pass higher prices through the system, and ultimately households and businesses around the country end up paying. The ACCC goes on to say: The limited merits review framework appears to have undermined the initial decision making process of the AER, and has led to significant price uncertainty for electricity customers. It says there is significant price uncertainty and an undermining of that initial price decision-making process of the regulator. So what of the Turnbull government's steps to abolish this process to ensure that we clean up the system? The ACCC notes: The Australian Government is currently taking steps to remove limited merits review. The ACCC welcomes this move. Reviews sought by network operators have added billions of dollars to the cost borne by electricity users. The ACCC considers that the removal of this avenue of appeal of the AER's decisions will help ensure network pricing is moderated in future. It is a strong endorsement from the ACCC and the most recent analysis around electricity prices—it was released publicly just today. It clearly demonstrates the Turnbull government is taking the most important step it can in relation to addressing this section of electricity pricing, which is the highest growth factor and the highest contribution to household electricity bills. It's with that in mind that I am surprised that some in this chamber—not the Labor Party, not the Greens, not the government parties and not One Nation but some in this chamber—have particularly questioned this. In fact some, in particular Senator Nick Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team, seem to have argued against the step that the government is taking. We hear plenty from Senator Xenophon and his compatriots arguing about electricity prices and calling for something to be done, yet when this government brings action to this parliament to address network costs, which we sought to do some months ago, Senator Nick Xenophon decides to take the side of the energy networks instead. Today, Senator Nick Xenophon has gone in to bat for price-gouging energy network operators, rather than struggling Australian households and businesses. He has come into this chamber and, in effect, defended the extra $6½ billion that households and businesses across the states and territories are paying, rather than supporting the government in taking action to rein in the operation of price-gouging energy networks. It is quite a remarkable argument that was waged. If you listen to the totality of those remarks from Senator Xenophon, as I did, you hear that they're not a particularly coherent set of remarks. In fact, there was no solution in particular offered as to how to address energy network costs. There was no solution offered as to how to address what are the largest contributors to household electricity bills and what is the largest contributor to the increase in household electricity bills. Instead, Senator Xenophon argued that the solution to energy prices lies in an emissions intensity scheme, a concept that, I acknowledge, he has long prosecuted, but, in arguing that, he's ignoring the reality that that has nothing to do with energy networks. That is about generation activities and the two are fundamentally different. Of course, energy networks are about those poles, wires and assets that distribute the power. They're not about how it is that the power is generated in the first place. Essentially, the argument he put is technically illiterate, as it ignores the very obvious difference between the generator producing power and the poles and wires delivering it to homes and businesses. The Turnbull government has proudly taken an approach of trying to address issues around prices at every step of the energy supply business. We recognise that there are price pressures that have flowed through to households from generation, from environmental schemes, from network distribution, and from retailers. The way to get the best solution for households and businesses is to tackle each and every one of those different components, so that's what we've been seeking to do. Energy markets and energy businesses used to be overwhelmingly the domain of state and territory governments, but we have taken action because of their failure to address each of those sections. In relation to environmental schemes, the coalition government took action that delivered a real reduction in electricity bills through the abolition of the carbon tax and ensured that, for the renewable energy target, we had a more realistic and achievable target than had previously been legislated. We took action and are taking action in relation to energy generation by supporting dispatchable energy sources in the future, such as pumped hydro schemes, that can come into the market and bring prices down when it is necessary to do so. We're supporting action in terms of network distribution through the legislation before the chamber as present and, of course, we supported action in the retail marketplace to ensure that retailers are giving the best deal to consumers and making it as easy as possible for consumers to opt into the best deal. Surely Senator Nick Xenophon doesn't really want to leave those network operators price gouging across Australia untouched and let them continue to get away with ripping billions of extra dollars out of Australian households and consumers. Certainly, the Turnbull government will not let that occur. That's why we have brought this legislation to the parliament and that's why we are pleased to acknowledge the support of various state governments and of various opposition parties. We commend the legislation to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 28 13:11 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 195565 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017 28

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017

Second Reading 28 13:12 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017. I will detail why Labor will oppose schedule 6 of this bill. Our proposed amendment is to remove that schedule. We are willing to support the remaining 13 schedules of the bill. In 2014, the government commissioned the panel led by Professor Ian Harper to review Australia's competition laws, policies and institutions. That review reported in March 2015. Two and a half years later, the Turnbull government has brought to parliament a bill containing 14 schedules amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to implement some of the recommendations from the Harper review. Labor supports 13 of the 14 schedules; they're largely uncontroversial. Indeed, we would have been happy to support them in 2015, when the Harper review finished its work. However, schedule 6 of the bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for breaches of the secondary boycott provisions, also known as the sympathy strikes, from $750,000 to $10 million. Labor will not support that measure, for reasons I will detail later. Labor is the party of competition. Competition means lower prices, higher wages, and better quality products for Australian families. It means a more productive and more innovative economy, with more jobs and higher standards of living. Strengthening competition is about defeating vested interest. It is about promoting a fair and equal society. More than anything else, promoting competition is about supporting the interests of Australian consumers over the interests of rent-seeking monopolists. It was Labor that introduced the Trade Practices Act 1974. Prior to that time, this was no act of parliament dedicated to competition matters. This original act, now known as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, remains the backbone of competition law in Australia. Under Prime Minister Keating, Professor Fred Hilmer was commissioned to chair a comprehensive review into competition policy. His report, known as the Hilmer report, set the agenda for competition policy in Australia for the two decades that followed. The Productivity Commission found that reforms implemented as a result of the report led to a significant and permanent increase in Australia's productive capacity. Likewise, the Grattan Institute has found that National Competition Policy is one of the 10 big reforms that led to 24 years of uninterrupted economic growth in Australia. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, further important changes were made to competition and consumer policy settings. In 2011, the Australian Consumer Law, or ACL, was introduced. The ACL was a cooperative reform between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth government. It created a consistent, national approach across a range of consumer issues, such as unfair contract terms, consumer rights and product safety. Labor went to the last election with a suite of policies to strengthen the Competition and Consumer Act. Labor committed to increase the penalties for anticompetitive and anticonsumer conduct and to use some of the revenues to increase the ACCC's litigation budget from $24.5 million to a maximum of twice that level. We welcome the government's announcement that it will align the Australian Consumer Law penalties with the rest of the act but urge it to adopt Labor's other policies that are in line with international best practice. Labor has also committed to giving the ACCC a completely independent market-studies function—something it has been begging for, for years now, to help it to identify competition challenges before they become systemic. Labor will support measures that boost competition, because Labor is the party of competition. It was the Labor Party that criminalised cartels back in 2009. Cartel conduct is a form of white-collar crime where businesses come together to fix prices against the interests of consumers. It was a civil offence prior to 2009. This was inconsistent with international best practice and meant that the appropriate disincentives were not in place to deter such conduct. Under Labor, cartel conduct was criminalised, bringing Australia into line with international best practice and meaning that offenders could face jail if caught fixing prices with their competitors. Labor has long recognised that effective competition policy is at the heart of productivity and a well-functioning economy. But it's also at the heart of a fair society that protects the interests of consumers over those of rent-seeking monopolists. Our record could not be any stronger. Labor also understands that well-functioning economies are a means to an end, and, for Labor, the development of competition policy will always be seen through this lens. For Labor, competition remains a vehicle to not just deliver lower prices to consumers and families but spread opportunity throughout the community. Lower barriers to entry lead to more competition and therefore greater participation. Labor believes in the need for government intervention when markets fail in consumer protection, to ensure that markets work for Australian consumers. Competition policy should not be used as an excuse for blind, ideological or prejudiced cuts to and privatisations of important human services. The people who lose out from cartels are Australian consumers and other Australian businesses, particularly small businesses, which are playing by the rules. Cartel conduct is widely regarded as the most serious and harmful violation of competition law. We have consulted widely to ensure that this bill does not water down cartel provisions. We don't want legitimate joint ventures to be unintentionally prohibited by the cartel provisions under the act. The bill broadens the exemption so it covers not just contracts but agreements and understandings. The bill also extends the joint venture exemptions to include provisions that are for the purposes of, and reasonably necessary for, undertaking the joint venture and to extend the exemptions to the acquisition of goods and services not just the production of goods and services. Another measure worthy of special consideration was the introduction of a 'reasonable search' defence. We have consulted widely to ensure this measure would not allow companies and individuals under investigation to use this defence in refusing or failing to comply with a compulsory information request by the ACCC under section 155. Section 155 is the foundation of the ACCC's ability to investigate alleged breaches of the act. The government's effects test bill is a separate bill but from the same review. Let's contrast this with the passage of the effects test. 'Effects test' is shorthand for the test introduced under section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which looks at whether conduct engaged in by a firm with a substantial degree of market power has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. This is dangerous economic policy. The effects test will make businesses afraid to compete, which ultimately hurts consumers. This will create a legal risk every time a business seeks to lower prices for their consumers. Consumers are the losers here. Labor welcomes strong competition policy but it must be informed and enforced—the government's package is neither. What we saw in the parliament earlier this year was the passing of dangerous legislative proposals without addressing the resources of the ACCC or making it easier for small businesses to litigate in their own private capacity. In the words of Peter Costello, the so-called effects test protects competitors, especially the less efficient ones, from competition. Since 1974, at least 10 inquiries into Australia's competition laws have considered the proposal of an effects test and rejected it. Apart from Professor Harper's review, only one other inquiry has ever recommended it. In submissions to the Harper review, the effects test has been described as 'legally unworkable, something that will chill competition and something that will create uncertainty for business'. These changes will deter job-creating investment in Australia by adding to a new layer of red tape and barriers to investment that has already been imposed by the Liberal-National government. As a majority of the schedules in this bill are technical and uncontroversial, I don't think it's necessary to detail each section for the Senate. But I will articulate Labor's position on schedule 6, which increases the maximum penalty on secondary boycotts. In doing so, I wish to reaffirm Labor's support for the remainder of the bill and assure all parties in this place that we will support the bill should our amendment to remove schedule 6 be agreed to. In 1974, the Trade Practices Act was introduced by the Whitlam government. When Malcolm Fraser's coalition government came into power, it was inspired by John Howard to introduce sections 45D and, later, 45E. These sections outlawing secondary boycotts particularly targeted trade unions. The Hawke government attempted to repeal sections 45D and 45E in 1984. However, the legislation was defeated in the Senate. This was based on the view that industrial relations matters are best resolved in specialist industrial courts or tribunals rather than through competition law or by the competition regulator. This repeal attempt was defeated by the Senate, and another attempt in 1987 was ultimately dropped. In 1993, the Keating government repealed the secondary boycott provisions that had operated since 1977 within the Trade Practices Act 1974. The government modified section 45D and depleted section 45E. The effect of the amendments to section 45D was that the prohibition covering secondary boycotts to the TPA was restricted to boycotts involving a substantial lessening of competition. The secondary boycott provisions were then reintroduced in a much modified form into the Industrial Relations Act 1988. This change limited the operations of the provisions on secondary boycott actions and made relief available, and conciliation on dispute was first attempted through the commission. The effect of this was that, if an employer wanted to commence legal action in respect of a secondary boycott, it had to go through the conciliation and arbitration process first. In 1996, the Howard government introduced Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, which reformed enterprise bargaining. The secondary boycott provisions were removed from the industrial relations legislation and returned to the TPA in 1974. This was on the basis that stronger protection could be provided under this act. Secondary boycott involves persons, in concert with another person, engaging in conduct that hinders or prevents a third person supplying or acquiring goods or services from a fourth person. Schedule 6 increases the penalties for breaching these provisions from $750,000 to $10 million. The International Labour Organization convention No. 87 permits sympathy strikes, provided the original industrial action was lawful. The International Labour Organization has noted the prohibition of secondary boycotts in Australian law as beyond what it regards as permissible prohibitions. Under international law, the ILO convention No. 87 sympathy strikes are permitted provided the original strike was lawful. Higher penalties would move Australia further away from international best practice. As benefits this government's agenda, secondary boycott laws are typically against trade unions that are engaged in sympathy strikes. Secondary boycotts are not as prevalent as in the past, which undermines the policy case to recommend higher penalties. There has been one instance of the ACCC undertaking action on secondary boycotts in the last decade. The proposed changes are inconsistent with Labor policy to have higher penalties for anticompetitive and anticonsumer conduct in line with international best practice. For more than 40 years, Labor has held the view that secondary boycotts are primarily an industrial matter rather than a competition issue. As I detailed before, it was the Fraser government in 1977 that introduced secondary boycotts into the Trade Practices Act, with the intention of targeting trade unions. In the 1980s, the Hawke government sought to remove these provisions from the Trade Practices Act, but the Senate defeated the attempt. The Keating government in 1993 moved some secondary boycott provisions into the Industrial Relations Act, only for the Howard government to return them to the Trade Practices Act in 1996. For comparison, unprotected industrial relations activity under the Fair Work Act 2009 is subject to far less penalties, a maximum of 60 penalty units—that is, $12,600. If enacted, the maximum penalties for a secondary boycott would be nearly 800 times the maximum penalty for unprotected industrial action. Compare this to the proposed penalty of 20 penalty units or $4,200 for noncompliance with a section 155 order. The government remains steadfast in its support of cutting penalty rates for up to 700,000 Australians in the retail, hospitality, fast-food and pharmacy sectors. The government wants to push ahead with its budget for millionaires and multinationals, including a $65 billion tax cut for banks and multinationals. In conclusion, as I've said, Labor supports the majority of this bill. We do not seek to be obstructionist, but we do not believe a policy case has been made for the changes to secondary boycotts. We urge senators to support our amendment to remove schedule 6. If the amendment is carried then Labor will vote for the bill, ensuring its speedy passage. 13:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017. The Greens, like Labor, will also be supporting this bill today, subject to an amendment that essentially removes the provision for secondary boycotts from this bill. The 13 or so other issues that are dealt with in this bill are essentially coupled to the effects test, as part of legislation that was passed by this place only a few weeks ago. In a sense, they enable an effects test to come into law and come into practice. I'm grateful that Labor have come to their senses and supported the legislation that's necessary for an effects test, and I'm grateful also for the amendment on secondary boycotts they have put up to have that removed from the bill. The issue of secondary boycotts really has nothing to do with an effects test. As with the effects test, it was recommended by the Harper review, but it's an entirely different matter. I did urge the government to remove it from the bill before they brought it to this place, so that it could be debated in a separate piece of legislation and so as not to necessarily complicate matters on the effects test. I congratulate the government for working with the Greens and the crossbench to pass an effects test. I know this is something that the National Party were very keen on, and it is something that the Greens have campaigned on now for many, many years, starting with Christine Milne prior to my taking over the competition portfolio. An effects test is going to be one of the biggest reforms to competition policy that Australia has seen in nearly a decade. Essentially, it will make it much easier for small businesses and farmers and aggrieved parties to tackle the power of monopolies and cartels. It is interesting that Senator Dodson said that Labor want to stand up to monopolies and cartels, and yet they have thumbed their noses at an effects test primarily because vested interests within the Labor Party—the shoppies union primarily—are big donors to the Labor Party and they are in bed with big companies like Coles and Woolworths. Nevertheless, what we have here today is the enabling legislation for an effects test. It's high time that we got on with this. This is something that I know the rural community in my home state of Tasmania has been campaigning on for some time, and we are very, very close. I have a couple of things to say about secondary boycotts. The Greens don't believe that the chamber should be supporting this provision. We see this as simply an attack on the rights of workers and their right to strike. We do believe, like Labor, that this is an industrial matter; it's not a competition issue. Cases of prosecutions for secondary boycotts are very rare. The penalties issued by courts, as opposed to settlements, don't go anywhere near the current $750,000 limit, let alone the $10 million limit that would be set by this bill if it were to pass unamended. The ACCC, in their submission to the Senate inquiry—an inquiry that I initiated into penalties for white-collar crime—didn't raise the issue of secondary boycotts as a matter of concern or urgency for them. I also note that when Mr Peter Costello, when he was Treasurer of this country, reviewed competition penalties in the Howard government's final term—when, incidentally, the Liberal government had the numbers in this place—he didn't seek to equalise penalties for secondary boycotts, like this legislation recommends, when he introduced the penalties that are currently in place, including $10 million penalties for other compensation-related penalties. We do believe that unions are not-for-profit organisations—they serve a very important purpose representing workers—and that there is a very good case to be mounted as to why they should be treated differently to profit-seeking corporations. We feel that this is yet another attempt by this government to hold up a paper and say that they've taken on the union movement in this country. It unnecessarily complicates what is essentially really important legislation that passes an effects test into law and makes it a lot easier for farmers and small businesses in this country to tackle the strength and the power of big corporations—especially in the case of farmers—who have exercised that market power in the past in what certainly looks to small businesses and farmers to be unconscionable conduct and anticompetitive behaviour. There is a very good reason why Professor Harper recommended an effects test. It makes it a lot easier for them to prosecute a case. All they need to do is prove that the effects of anticompetitive behaviour are there, rather than the intent and purpose. Anyway, I spoke at length on the effects test when the legislation passed. There is no more to say about that except to say that it is good legislation that is very important for small businesses and farmers in this country and I look forward to supporting Labor's amendment on the secondary boycotts. I hope that the government in the other place supports the amended legislation and passes an effects test into law. 13:37 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I would like to thank all of those senators who have contributed to this debate. This bill contains a significant package of reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These reforms are designed to simplify the law and address anticompetitive conduct while encouraging procompetitive behaviour. These reforms will strengthen Australia's competition laws and will deliver benefits to consumers, businesses and the economy. The bill implements a substantial number of the competition law reforms recommended by the independent Harper Competition policy review and agreed to by the government in its response to the review. It also implements the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in the 2013 inquiry into the National access regime, which the government accepted in its Harper review response. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 32 13:38 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia The opposition opposes schedule 6 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 6, item 1, page 31 (lines 1 to 5), Schedule 6, TO BE OPPOSED. Labor moves this amendment to the bill because of the matters I have spoken of: that is, that this is raising a substantial fine for any strikes deemed to be a boycott. It doesn't really allow for consideration of those situations where trade union movements support very good causes outside of what is strictly considered an industrial competition situation. So we're opposed to that schedule, and, unless there are some amendments to it, we'll be opposing the bill. 13:40 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I was listening very carefully then, and I think Senator Dodson might want to clarify that last sentence—that Labor would oppose the bill if there was no amendment moved to this bill by the government. The government will be opposing this amendment. It's obviously up to the Senate to determine the Senate's position, but the government will oppose the amendment. We believe all the reforms in this bill are sensible and should not be controversial. Since the government responded to the Harper review in late 2015, we have not heard anything from the opposition against any of these reforms, and now, suddenly, without notice, the opposition has chosen to oppose schedule 6 of this bill. Schedule 6 simply proposes to align the penalties for breaches of the secondary boycott provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to the same level as other breaches of the competition law, as recommended by the Harper review and the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Instead of supporting this sensible reform, Labor is seeking to create a special carve-out for unions that commit serious breaches of the law that are completely unrelated to industrial conditions that affect their members. Again, this is Labor, under Mr Shorten's leadership, running a protection racket for unions that break the law at the expense of small businesses, workers, consumers and the wider economy. The government will not be supporting this Labor amendment and will instead propose that schedule 6 stand as printed. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 204953 The question is that schedule 6 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [13:46]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Gallacher)

25 AYES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Smith, D 33 NOES Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Dastyari, S (teller) Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Kitching, K Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to move an amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 204953 Does the amendment you are seeking leave to move relate to schedule 6? Senator ROBERTS 266524 Yes. The amendment on sheet 8289 relates to schedule 6, page 31. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The result of the previous division is that schedule 6 has been removed from the bill. You can't move an amendment to a schedule that no longer exists. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 33 13:51 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 33

Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Second Reading 33 13:52 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Labor supports this bill, the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which was under consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee when the previous parliament was dissolved on 9 May last year. During the election campaign, we took to the people of Australia a number of measures aimed at ending the scourge of family violence. Eliminating family violence must be a national priority. It is an area where there ought to be, and I believe is, bipartisanship. I can see no evidence to the contrary on that point. We are therefore keen to work with the government and the crossbench to achieve greater protection for women and children facing domestic violence, and this bill is consistent with that aim. The purpose of this bill is to implement an assessable sponsorship framework for sponsored family visas similar to the framework that applies to sponsored work visas. Under this framework, a sponsor will have to make an application to become a sponsor before the primary visa application can be submitted. The sponsor will then be subject to several legally enforceable obligations. All family visas already have a sponsorship requirement, but under current practice there are few enforcement mechanisms. There is little scrutiny of the character of the sponsor or of the responsibilities that they assume. In some instances, applicants have not had longstanding knowledge of the sponsoring family member. There have been claims of family violence arising from within the existing program. This bill is intended to provide a remedy for that: it allows the sharing of police checks, and visa applicants will have access to information to understand the background of their sponsors in a much more effective manner. Under the framework introduced by this bill, applicants will be supplied with the information that they need before they agree to accept sponsorship. For obvious reasons, this is especially important when dealing with applicants with children. The bill gives the minister or a delegate the power to refuse a sponsorship application or cancel an existing sponsorship where police checks reveal that the sponsor has a history of family violence, where the sponsor has a history of previous immigration cancellations or where there has been inappropriate use of the family visa program. Importantly, the bill retains provisions of the Migration Act that allow people applying for permanent residence in Australia to continue with their application after the breakdown of a marriage or a de facto relationship in which they or other family members have experienced violence by their partner. This bill is an important step in providing greater protection to the victims or potential victims of family violence. But, in the bipartisan spirit that we believe offers the best way to go forward in this matter, Labor urge the government to go further. We ask the government to consider measures to protect people on temporary visas by creating a new type of visa. These new temporary visas would remove impediments to women leaving their partners and provide a right to work so that women leaving violent relationships will be able to support themselves. I say again that Labor is willing to work with the government on this matter and I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 amends the Migration Act to allow the refusal of a sponsorship application, to cancel or bar a family sponsor in certain circumstances, to impose statutory obligations on approved sponsors and to facilitate the sharing of personal information. Obviously, family violence or domestic violence is an incredibly serious issue and one that has been responded to in greater measure by Commonwealth, state and territory governments in this country over the last few years, which is something that needs to be acknowledged and welcomed, albeit while pointing out that not all of the responses have been perfect or, indeed, adequate. However, because we are dealing with an important issue, which family violence obviously is, that doesn't mean that we can completely abandon procedural fairness, nor does it mean that we can completely abandon rights such as privacy rights, so the discussion or the conversation in this context often becomes one around where we strike a balance between conflicting imperatives. And that's something that, I'm sure, all members of this chamber wrestle with from time to time across a range of issues. It's in that context that the Australian Greens express some concerns with the provisions in this legislation. This legislation provides that potential partner or marriage visa sponsors would first need to be approved as a sponsor before the sponsored visa process can commence. It's worth pointing out that the explanatory memorandum makes no mention of why these changes are necessary or what deficiencies there may be in the current arrangements that have led the government to form a view that the amendments that are proposed in this legislation are, in fact, necessary. I refer the Senate to the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2011 report Family violence and Commonwealth laws—improving legalframeworks, which considered the issue with regulating sponsorship, and during that inquiry the department of immigration submitted: Such measures could lead to claims that the Australian Government is arbitrarily interfering with families, in breach of its international obligations. It could also lead to claims that the Australian government is interfering with relationships between Australian and their overseas partners in a way it would not interfere in a relationship between two Australians. The Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that, rather than instituting a separate criterion for sponsorship: … the safety of partner visa applicants should be promoted by targeted education and information dissemination. The Australian Law Reform Commission also concluded: … that, because of concerns about Australia's international obligations, as well as procedural fairness and privacy, sponsorship requirements should not be altered. So that is the view of the Australian Law Reform Commission. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator McKim. It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. You will be in continuation. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 35 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland I advise the Senate that Senator Sinodinos will be absent from question time until later this year on medical leave. In Senator Sinodinos's absence, Senator Cash will represent the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, and I will represent the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Senator Fierravanti-Wells will be absent from question time until Thursday, 19 October on overseas ministerial business. In Senator Fierravanti-Wells's absence, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 35 14:00 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Following the release of the Finkel review, the Prime Minister sold the clean energy target, telling Australians that it had 'very strong virtues' and a lot of merit and would certainly work. Does the Prime Minister stand by these statements? 14:01 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Moore, the Prime Minister stands by everything he said. And, in particular, what the Prime Minister stands by is a commitment to the Australian people that, as a result of the policies of this government, electricity will be more affordable and more reliable than it ever would be under a Labor government. It is interesting that some statistics were published this morning by the ACCC that indicate that, in the last decade, electricity prices rose by 63 per cent—63 per cent. Almost the entirety of that increase occurred during the period of the Labor government, on Mr Rudd's watch and Ms Gillard's watch. Senator Kim Carr AW5 Rubbish! Rubbish! Senator BRANDIS 008W7 And, if you look at the charts, Senator Carr, that the ACCC has produced, that will demonstrate that to be the case. So we're not going to be taking any lectures from the Australian Labor Party or dinosaurs like you, Senator Carr, about keeping electricity prices low. We're not going to be taking any lectures about electricity pricing from the party which, in the state of South Australia, has presided over the most catastrophic policies of any state in the Commonwealth—a state government, under the leadership of the Labor Premier, Mr Weatherill, that cannot keep the lights on. And the reason for that is: you are wedded to ideology and we are not, Senator Carr. We are wedded to pragmatism; we are wedded to good economics; we are wedded to decent engineering solutions, because the Australian people will always know that electricity prices will be lower and supply will be more reliable under a coalition government than it ever would be under a Labor government. If anyone ever had any doubt about that proposition, just look at South Australia. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Moore, a supplementary question. 14:03 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland The former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who also stood behind everything he said, has refused to support a clean energy target, saying, 'It would be unconscionable.' Who was correct—the current Prime Minister or the former Prime Minister? 14:03 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Moore, I assume you are referring to some observations that Mr Abbott made during a lecture to a think tank in London last week. I haven't actually read Mr Abbott's speech, but I've seen reports of his remarks, and I actually saw some extracts from his speech on the Insiders program yesterday morning. He made some interesting anthropological observations about people sacrificing goats to volcanoes or something like that, and I note what Mr Abbott had to say. Mr Abbott is entitled to his views. But, Senator Moore, life is too short to read everything that all of one's political colleagues may have to say, no matter how interesting they may be. But you may rest assured, Senator Moore, that the views of the Australian government are the views of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not the views of a backbencher. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Moore, a final supplementary question. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my left. I need to hear the question. 14:04 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland I refer to reports that the clean energy target will be considered again by the coalition party room this week. Is the Prime Minister hoping that third time is the lucky time? Or is he confident that he has weakened his proposal sufficiently to secure the approval of Mr Abbott, the rest of the parliament and the senior leadership group? 14:04 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland We are focused on outcomes. And the outcome on which we are focused is the suite of policies that will make energy prices—and, in particular, domestic electricity prices—more affordable and electricity supply more reliable. That is what we are focused on. And, as you know, we have had a discussion within the government. We have considered a variety of points of view, but we will be focused with laser-like focus on two things and two things only: how to make electricity prices more affordable and how to make electricity supply more reliable. What we don't want to do, and will not do, is see Australia repeat the catastrophe that the Labor government has wrought upon the people of South Australia, where the Labor Party cannot even keep the lights on. We're not going to have that outcome in other states. We will be settling on a suite of policies that makes power more affordable and supply more reliable. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 36 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:05 The PRESIDENT e5v Before I call the next questioner, can I draw to the attention of senators the presence in the President's gallery of a delegation from the parliament of Indonesia. Welcome to Australia and particularly to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 36 14:06 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. I ask: can the minister update the Senate on the importance of a secure and affordable gas supply for Australian families and businesses? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Duniam for his question and for his particular interest in relation to the importance of gas and gas supply in the Australian energy market, which is of course so critical to the operation of many manufacturing businesses as well as to households and businesses across Australia insofar as they impact on electricity prices. Indeed, wholesale gas prices make up an estimated 15 to 30 per cent of total residential gas bills and household gas bills. These increase with increases in those prices flowing through the market—some five per cent per $2 per gigajoule increase in New South Wales, for example, according to the ACCC. That's why it's important, and that's why the Turnbull government has taken action to ensure that the supply-and-demand imbalance that appeared to be emerging in the Australian gas market is being rectified. The Prime Minister has secured agreement with the heads of the three big east coast gas companies to ensure that there is sufficient gas supply to meet the projected shortfall in the Australian market and to ensure that there is sufficient gas supply to guarantee that in the future Australian consumers, be they businesses or households, have the gas to meet their needs. Indeed, the commitment from gas companies will see an estimated 54 to 108 additional petajoules of gas come into the Australian gas market. This is incredibly significant because, if you look at gas usage in a regional town, such as Warrnambool or Wollongong, or at a major industrial manufacturer, they would use just one petajoule per annum. The action we are taking is guaranteeing many times that—between some 54 and 108 additional petajoules entering the market. Senator Cameron AI6 At what cost? Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X 'At what cost?' Senator Cameron says. Well, what we've seen is that the spot price for gas has come down thanks to the Turnbull government's actions. It's down around $12 a gigajoule now to some $8 a gigajoule. That is significant movement down, and as more supply comes into the market we're confident that it will further drive down prices for Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Duniam—a supplementary question. 14:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank the minister for his answer. Can the minister inform the Senate of the main drivers of electricity price increases? 14:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I can. Indeed, the report released today by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—their preliminary report into retail electricity pricing—demonstrates very clearly that the largest impacts in terms of household and business energy bills, and the largest growth impact on those bills over the last decade, have been related to network costs. I am very pleased that shortly before question time this chamber passed the Turnbull government's legislation to abolish the limited merits review process that the network operators had been gaming. They had been gaming it to the tune of some $6½ billion of extra costs that had been fed into the Australian electricity system because of the abuse of the limited merits review process. It was the Turnbull government which took the action—despite opposition from some states and despite delaying tactics by the Labor Party—to abolish this, which can have some of the most significant impacts on keeping prices down into the future. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question? 14:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Can the minister outline what the Turnbull government is doing to help reduce pressure on power bills for Australian households and businesses? 14:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We're taking action across every step of the supply chain. In terms of generation, we're taking action to make sure that new dispatchable sources that can bring prices down when it matters, such as pumped hydro, come online in future years. In terms of the networks, which I just spoke about, we have taken action through the abolition of the limited merits review process, delivering, of course, a system that will ensure network operators can no longer game the system. In terms of the retail sphere, we have taken action to guarantee that retailers offer the best deal to consumers and that consumers—around two million households around the country—will be better able to access those best deals around retail opportunities. Also, as the ACCC report highlights, as a coalition government we took the action to abolish the carbon tax, putting real downward movement in electricity prices at the time, as well as making reforms in relation to the Renewable Energy Target to make sure that it was achievable and affordable for the future rather than the exaggerated target that was in place. Energy 37 14:11 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The outgoing BlueScope CEO, Mr Paul O'Malley, last week told his company's AGM that BlueScope's electricity costs would rise by 93 per cent between 2016 and 2018. Can the minister confirm that, after four years of Liberal-National government, power prices have never been higher? Senator Cormann HDA They'd be higher with a carbon tax! 14:11 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No, Senator Carr, I can't confirm that, nor am I familiar with the observations of the CEO of BlueScope Steel. What I can tell you, Senator Carr, is this: if the Labor Party were in power, electricity prices—both domestic prices and wholesale prices to industry—would be much higher than they are at the moment because, as Senator Cormann reminds me, among many other things, we would have a carbon tax. We would have the carbon tax that the former Labor Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, promised never to introduce and then, in flagrant breach of an election promise, did introduce. It caused the biggest single spike in electricity prices in modern history. That was your legacy, Senator Carr. As I said in response to your colleague Senator Moore, we won't be taking advice or instruction from, of all people, the Labor Party about how to keep electricity prices low, particularly since on your watch we had the fastest rate of growth of electricity prices in modern history, not just because of the carbon tax but significantly because of the carbon tax. That is why, Senator Carr, the government—the Prime Minister and Mr Frydenberg in particular—are focused, as I said before, on the twin objectives of keeping electricity prices lower than they otherwise would be and ensuring reliability of supply. We will be adopting a suite of policies that are entirely configured to securing those two objectives. Senator Carr, unlike you, we're not driven by ideology. Unlike you, we're not driven by a political imperative to outcompete the Greens. Unlike you, nor are we economically incompetent. We understand that you need policies that will encourage the market to deliver electricity prices at their most affordable level while ensuring reliability and supply, and that is what we're going to do. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a supplementary question? 14:13 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I repeat, Minister: BlueScope's electricity costs will rise by 93 per cent. The government's commissioned Finkel review found that the clean energy target would save Australians $160 on their power bills. Why has the government failed to implement a price-reducing clean energy target? 14:14 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Carr, I think what you ought to be focused on are the policies that will have the most impact on electricity prices, because that is what we are focused on. This debate in Australia—we have seen it in the Senate for years now—has been bedevilled because people have become obsessed with a single policy and have seen in that single policy the only possible way of achieving an outcome. Well, we're not obsessed with a single policy. We're obsessed with an outcome, and the outcome we're obsessed with is ensuring that electricity prices are lower than they otherwise would be and that supply is reliable. That's what we care about. Senator Carr, you were the minister for industry for a period of years, during which electricity prices had their sharpest upward movement in Australian history. We are not going to repeat your mistakes or the mistakes of the South Australian Labor government. We are going to deliver affordable and reliable electricity. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Why is the Prime Minister giving in to the demands of former Prime Minister Abbott instead of listening to the overwhelming majority of those who support the clean energy target, including the Prime Minister himself, his energy minister, the Chief Scientist, the Business Council of Australia, AiG, Australia's leading energy companies and AEMO's Expert Advisory Panel? 14:15 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Carr, in fact the Prime Minister is listening to all of those stakeholder groups and others as well, because we are going to announce an evidence based— Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! You've asked your question, Senator Carr. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 economically sensible suite of policies that, as I said to you before, are focused on two objectives: to make electricity as affordable as it can be and to make supply as reliable as it can be. As I said a moment ago, we certainly won't be taking lectures from you, Senator Carr, or your colleagues, who presided over the fastest increase in electricity prices in modern history—who, in the state of South Australia, with their ideological obsession with a 50 per cent renewables target, couldn't even keep the lights on. What an indictment. In a modern, 21st century economy, you couldn't even keep the lights on, because of your obsession with ideology. Trade Unions 38 14:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of reports of intimidation, threats or harassment of Australian workers and their families by members of registered organisations? 14:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, I am sickened to advise the Senate that individuals at the CFMEU picket line at Oaky North have reached a new level of depravity. Outside Oaky North, in Queensland, last week, we saw reports of CFMEU thugs intimidating workers at Glencore, including threatening to rape the children of these workers. It is quite frankly hard to imagine that anyone, despite the circumstances, could say anything so depraved that they would threaten to rape someone's children, in particular when all these people are trying to do is to go to work. Those opposite, unfortunately, colleagues, don't condemn the CFMEU; they just try to justify their behaviour. Let's take, for example, Senator Watt, who proudly boasts that he has been to the picket line and stood beside the same people who have made these threats—threats to rape someone's children. Then, of course, we witnessed Sally McManus, who dismissed this behaviour as a result of a lack of education. What a snob. She thinks that people who don't have university degrees must therefore behave like animals. Then, of course, we have Labor candidate Ged Kearney, who laid the blame for these vile threats with the employer, saying, 'If there's anyone here to blame, it must be the company.' How can anyone, in any way, try to rationalise or justify threatening to rape someone's children? The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question? 14:19 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Is the minister aware of any links between elected members of parliament and the members of the registered organisation concerned? 14:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, unfortunately, I am. Given that I'm unable to use the vile language that those on the picket line utilised, I will table a document containing a detailed list of the threats made at the CFMEU picket line. Despite these threats, and despite the Labor Party knowing about these vile and disgusting threats, the Leader of the Opposition himself, Mr Bill Shorten, travelled thousands of kilometres so he too could stand alongside the picket line. The man who wants to be the Prime Minister stood side by side with people who are making some of the vilest threats I have ever heard. As a leader of a major political party, what message is Mr Shorten sending to those workers who have been subjected to this type of abuse when he stands in solidarity with the abusers? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 14:20 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Can the minister advise what the parliamentarians just referred to can do to dissociate themselves from this behaviour? 14:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, the Labor Party haven't done anything—just more weasel words. What they need to do is demonstrate real leadership and sever all ties with the CFMEU. That, of course, means they should stop taking the CFMEU's money. All we have seen to date is weasel words and veiled attempts to excuse this vile behaviour—vile behaviour including threats to rape someone's children. But this record has been played many times before. Too much money is at stake for principles to prevail. The Labor Party has accepted $8 million from the CFMEU in the last five years. But in light of what has been exposed it really does beg the question. If a threat to rape someone's children doesn't mean the Labor Party will sever ties with the CFMEU, what type of behaviour will justify it? (Time expired) Energy 39 14:22 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, since your government came to office and abolished the price on carbon, the wholesale price of electricity has doubled and pollution continues to fuel extreme weather and threaten the Great Barrier Reef. Despite all that, your government has ruled out a price on carbon, you have ruled out extending the renewable energy target, you have ruled out an emissions intensity scheme, you have ruled out regulating electricity prices and now you're ruling out a clean energy target. Minister, when are you going to accept that having an energy policy that satisfies no-one except for Tony Abbott and your big coal donors is a recipe for high prices, more pollution and fewer jobs? 14:23 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Di Natale, I reject every single premise of your question. As I said in response to the two questions I've received from the opposition already, what this government is committed to is a pragmatic set of policies designed to serve the twin objectives of keeping electricity prices as low as possible and ensuring reliability of supply. And the way we're going to do that, as I and my colleagues have told you endless times this year, is to adopt a technology-agnostic approach. We know that the Australian people, electricity consumers, are not interested in Greens' ideology. They're not interested in ideology at all. What they're interested in is in ensuring supply is reliable and power is affordable. And that—and only that—will guide the policy choices this government makes. Senator Di Natale, among the many premises in your question—which is false and which I disputed—is the assertion that electricity prices have doubled under this government. Have a look at the ACCC's figures that were published this morning which demonstrate that the price of electricity spiked and underwent its sharpest increase during the period of the previous Labor government—when the Labor Party was enslaved to your obsession with resolving this issue according to ideology rather than economics and practical common sense. We are not going to make that mistake. We are going to adopt, as I said before, a technology-agnostic approach; we're going to adopt whatever policies will put downward pressure on prices and ensure the reliability of supply. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:24 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, I get that the Prime Minister has been spooked; he lost his prime ministership because of his support for renewable energy. But he's going to lose government because of his anti-renewables stance. Poll after poll has showed that Australians love renewable energy—they love it. So the question for you, Minister, is: who do you stand with? Do you stand with the community, who know that renewables are good for prices and that they bring down pollution? Or do you stand with Tony Abbott and your big coal donors? 14:25 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Di Natale, the Prime Minister has made it clear time and again, if you would but listen, that renewable energy will always be an important and a growing component of the energy mix. We have always said that. And that is why, for example, we adopted some of the most ambitious per capita emissions reduction targets in the world at the Paris climate change conference. So renewables are not only an important part of our policy; they are a growing part of our policy. But, unlike you, Senator Di Natale, we are not obsessed with an ideology. So we acknowledge as well that carbon sources will also continue to be an important part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future—that gas and coal will continue to be an important part of the energy mix, because what we want is the right outcome. What we want is an outcome that keeps prices down and keeps supply reliable. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. 14:26 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, when is the Prime Minister going to show a little bit of courage or some leadership—some guts—by calling for the disendorsement of Tony Abbott, whose only motivation seems to be to sacrifice the Prime Minister to the gods of his own bitterness and vengeance? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my right! Senator Bernardi, a point of order? Senator Bernardi G0D Yes. It's a point of order about addressing the former Prime Minister by his correct title, which is either 'the member for Warringah' or 'the former Prime Minister'. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Bernardi. It's timely to advise and remind all senators to address members and senators by their correct titles. 14:27 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Well, Senator Di Natale, if only you spent as much time thinking about policy as you obviously do about internal political games and third-rate rhetoric— Senator Cormann HDA How many times have you rehearsed that? Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Oh, now, Senator Mathias Cormann cruelly interjects that you rehearsed those lines in front of a mirror! You need to do better, Senator Di Natale! You need to do better than that, Senator Di Natale, if you're going to spend most of your morning in front of the mirror rehearsing third-rate rhetoric. The fact is, Senator Di Natale, you got this wrong. You've got this wrong from the start, and there's a reason you've got it wrong. It's because for you it's all about ideology. For you it's not about lower prices and more reliable supply for Australian consumers; for you it is all about end-coal ideology, Green ideology. If only you could see— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Yes, a point of order, Mr President. The Attorney-General hasn't come anywhere near answering whether he supports the disendorsement of Tony Abbott from the Liberal Party. The PRESIDENT e5v Well, thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. The Attorney-General is answering the question and he has two seconds in which to finish. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Senator Di Natale, if only you would focus on policy, not politics. (Time expired) Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel 40 14:28 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. On 13 September, the minister told the Senate that she first became aware of the illegal behaviour of the former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Mr Hadgkiss, in October 2016. The Prime Minister has admitted he knew of the behaviour because it was on the public record. Given that the proceedings against Mr Hadgkiss were filed on 19 August 2016, why did it take two months for the minister to become aware of the behaviour that Mr Hadgkiss himself admitted as being illegal? 14:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Cameron for the question. Senator Cameron, I became aware of the behaviour that was alleged against the former ABCC commissioner, as I stated, on 11 October 2016, when I was advised that the CFMEU sought to commence legal action against the Commonwealth as well as Mr Hadgkiss. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a supplementary question. 14:30 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales How did the minister first become aware of Mr Hadgkiss's illegal behaviour, and what action did she take as a result? 14:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the illegal behaviour, as I advised the Senate, on 12 September 2017 I came to understand that Mr Hadgkiss had acknowledged, in the context of the CFMEU litigation against him, that he had breached a provision of the Fair Work Act, that being section 503. The following day the government accepted Mr Hadgkiss's resignation, on 13 September 2017. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 14:31 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales When did the minister first discuss Mr Hadgkiss's illegal behaviour with the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues? 14:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the illegal behaviour, I assume you mean the behaviour that Mr Hadgkiss had acknowledged in the context of the CFMEU litigation against him. That was on 12 September 2017, after I became aware that Mr Hadgkiss had acknowledged in the context of the CFMEU litigation against him that he had indeed breached a provision of the Fair Work Act, that being section 503. The PRESIDENT e5v Point of order, Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron AI6 The question I have asked is: when did the minister first discuss this illegal behaviour with the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues? The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you. Minister, had you concluded your answer? Senator CASH I0M I have concluded my answer. The PRESIDENT e5v The minister has concluded her answer. Defence Personnel 41 14:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is for the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Our Defence Force is made up of men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend and protect Australia, as well as conducting peacekeeping operations. When and why has it become the Defence Force's responsibility to fund 27 ADF staff personnel sex change operations and treatments for gender dysphoria over the past five years at a cost of $1.05 million, including 15 breast enhancement procedures between 2012 and 2015, costing taxpayers $235,000? 14:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Hanson for her question. Let me be very clear: the Defence Force regulations mandate that Defence provide necessary health care to all Defence members. Defence Force members are not individually covered by Medicare. What Defence provides is comprehensive health care that is clinically necessary for the management of health conditions, illnesses and injuries. Gender dysphoria, in that context, is managed in accordance with current best-practice clinical guidelines under the same principles as any other health condition. So, if a member of the ADF is diagnosed with or treated for gender dysphoria, Defence will fund the medical procedures or support as prescribed by the treating doctor. Cosmetic or elective surgeries are not funded. This occurs in the same way that this treatment or support would be available under Medicare for civilian members of the community. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hanson, a supplementary question. 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, we have returned service personnel facing PTSD, homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide, with many not getting the help they desperately need. One million dollars would go a long way to helping and saving their lives. Do you consider sex change and breast enhancement more important? If not, what are you going to do to address it? 14:34 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Hanson for her question. I think it's invidious to try and distinguish between one health condition and one personal health circumstance over another. In no way does Defence's engagement in relation to gender dysphoria diminish or lessen Defence's commitment—and, for that matter, the Department of Veterans' Affairs' commitment—to the strongest possible support for returned servicemen and servicewomen and those who continue to serve those who are veterans. I will also address the focus of Senator Hanson's question in relation to funding. Senator Hanson referred to it being just over $1 million. Let me put that in context. The 2015-16 total expenditure on ADF health was $430 million, as published on page 21 of the Defence annual report 2015-16, volume 2. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, wouldn't you agree that sex change and breast enhancement is a personal choice and will not help in any way in defending or protecting our country? Will you stop this ridiculous and unnecessary cost to taxpayers? 14:35 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I said in my previous remarks, gender dysphoria, and the condition that is gender dysphoria, is managed in accordance with current best practice and clinical guidelines under the same principles as any other health condition. If a member is diagnosed by a medical practitioner and treated for gender dysphoria, then Defence will fund the medical procedures or support, as prescribed by the treating doctor. This is not a case of treatment by cosmetic or elective procedures and surgeries; this is as diagnosed and as treated by a medical practitioner for medical procedures that are required to treat the condition of gender dysphoria. I think it's very important to acknowledge the complexity that attaches to these particular conditions. They are treated seriously by Defence, they are dealt with seriously by Defence, and they are dealt with according to best practice clinical guidelines, as directed by medical practitioners. Trade Unions 42 14:36 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. In light of the minister's responses to questions from Senator O'Sullivan, is the minister aware of reports of violence being perpetrated by officials of registered organisations? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, Senator Smith, I am, and the incident in Queensland is not an isolated event. One CFMEU union official who has a record of violence and threatening and intimidating behaviour is WA CFMEU official Luke Collier. Mr Collier, because of his deplorable criminal record, is unable to obtain a right-of-entry permit onto building sites, and yet the WA CFMEU proudly lists him on its website as their labour-hire youth organiser. One might ask: what example does this set for young people? Luke Collier, as many will be aware, was jailed in 2016 for assault. He also threatened a female Fair Work Building and Construction inspector, making vile statements. Again, I shall not repeat them in this chamber, as they are so offensive, but they did involve vile sexual language. He once spat at an inspector's feet and told them to lick it up. He was also charged with aggravated assault against his former girlfriend after she reported to police that she had been beaten on multiple occasions, including suffering a broken arm. Just last week, Mr Collier was again charged with assault in our home state of Western Australia, and he is set to appear in the Fremantle magistrates court next month. Interestingly, though, there are CFMEU members in WA who are voicing their concerns at Mr Collier and his actions. People, for example, are questioning how they can spend their union's money on a bloke who can't go onto a job and do anything and why they have inherited a bloke from the east coast who has a track record. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 14:34 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Is the minister aware of any statements from the registered organisation concerned relating to its views on this matter of violence? 14:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, I am. In fact Mr Dave Noonan, the national construction secretary of the CFMEU, wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in May 2015, saying that they abhorred violence against women. His letter said: There is no double standard by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union on the issue of violence against women. The CFMEU has taken a strong and public position against violence towards women … We will not stand by an official where there is evidence they have engaged in this kind of behaviour. And yet here we are today with the CFMEU continuing to stand by Mr Luke Collier, giving him a notable position within their WA organisation, despite his history of violence against women and his criminal record. So much for 'no double standard'. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a final supplementary question. 14:40 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Is the minister aware of any other concerns about this official? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As I've stated, the concerns about Mr Collier are exceptionally well known. He has been jailed for assault, has threatened Commonwealth public servants, has engaged in violence against women and has now brought this behaviour to my home state of Western Australia. But those in the CFMEU continue to defend him, as do many on the other side. I've raised this before: Senator Cameron asked no fewer than 61 questions at Senate estimates in October 2014, defending Mr Collier, and then, of course, in 2015, Senator Cameron wrote a letter on his parliamentary letterhead advocating on behalf of Mr Collier. Just in case there's any doubt, I will table the letter. The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron AI6 That is a complete fabrication, and the minister should know better. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, there is no point of order. There is ample opportunity in other places in the program for you to raise those matters. Senator CASH I0M As I said, I am more than happy to table the letter, and, indeed, I will. It would be nice if, just on one occasion, someone on the other side came into the Senate and advocated for those men and women who Mr Collier has abused and assaulted. Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel 43 14:41 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. On 29 September the Federal Court handed down its decision in relation to the illegal behaviour of the former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Mr Hadgkiss, ending 13 months of litigation. What amount of taxpayers' money was spent defending Mr Hadgkiss? 14:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Pratt for her question. Senator Pratt, you would be aware it is longstanding practice for Commonwealth statutory office holders and employees to be indemnified for the costs of defending legal proceedings brought against them. For your information, the indemnity given to Mr Hadgkiss covering his costs was consistent with the Commonwealth Legal Services Directions. It did not cover the penalty awarded against him. In terms of your question as to what are the finalised legal costs, I am advised that the amount for Mr Hadgkiss's legal costs is yet to be finalised. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Pratt, a supplementary question. 14:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister confirm that the cost to taxpayers could have been substantially reduced had Mr Hadgkiss admitted his behaviour was illegal some 13 months earlier? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Pratt, I remind you that it is longstanding practice for Commonwealth statutory office holders and employees, regardless of who is in government, to be indemnified for the costs of defending legal proceedings brought against them. In relation to current legal proceedings, for example, you would be aware that there are current legal proceedings in relation to the former Gillard government's live cattle trade debacle. The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU The question was very precise, Mr President, bearing in mind your advice from the chair. It was: 'Can the minister confirm that the cost to taxpayers could have been substantially reduced had Mr Hadgkiss admitted his behaviour was illegal 13 months earlier?' The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Wong. I remind the minister of the question. Senator CASH I0M Thank you very much. As I stated in relation to it, regardless of which government is in office, there are certain longstanding practices that are adhered to. For example, in relation to former minister Joe Ludwig, the Australian taxpayer is still paying the legal fees of the former agriculture minister in terms of the litigation that has been brought against him. To date the government has had to pay more than $800,000— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, Minister. A point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU What an abuse of the Senate that she's able to give quantum—sorry; the minister— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my right. Senator WONG 00AOU can give quantum on one thing but not the thing about which she's being asked. This is on direct relevance. There was one question asked. The minister's avoiding the question. If she wants to go on a political diatribe, she can do it in taking note. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Brandis, on the point of order? Senator Brandis 008W7 On the point of order: the minister made it perfectly clear that the amount is not settled. She is being directly responsive to the question. The PRESIDENT e5v The minister has three seconds in which to conclude her answer. I'll remind the minister again of the question and invite the minister to conclude her answer. Senator CASH I0M Well, Mr Hadgkiss pleaded to the actual court— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question. 14:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can the minister please explain why taxpayers are footing the bill for defending Mr Hadgkiss when he ignored advice from senior staff that his behaviour was a legal risk and he waited 13 months to admit that his behaviour constituted a reckless breach of law? 14:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Pratt, I would remind you that, regardless of who is in office, it is longstanding practice for Commonwealth statutory office holders and employees to be indemnified for the cost of defending legal proceedings brought against them. Manufacturing 44 14:46 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Acting Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to assist Australia's manufacturing businesses as they transition? 14:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Fawcett, and yes, I can. This is a pivotal time for Australian industry and, in particular, Australian manufacturing. The Turnbull government has the policies to help workers in transition and to assist our manufacturers to seek lucrative markets both here domestically and overseas. For example, the government is ensuring that those affected by the closure of Holden continue to receive assistance as they transfer into new industries. Our focus is on the industries of the future. This is underpinned by our $238 million Industry Growth Centres initiative, focusing on industries where Australia has a demonstrated competitive advantage to create new jobs. We are also supporting businesses' transition, through our $155 million growth fund, following the closure of the automotive manufacturers, and we have extended this assistance with a further $100 million in this year's budget. We are also supporting businesses through our $400 million Entrepreneurs' Program, which gives them the advice and support they need to improve their competitiveness and productivity and to seek growth opportunities. We've commenced a $90 billion naval shipbuilding program. We also have a half-a-billion-dollar upgrade of the Osborne shipbuilding facility in South Australia. This will employ 600 people at its peak. We are building an $8.4 billion inland rail line, which will bring our regional producers and communities closer to markets. The government's support for manufacturing industry is a landmark investment in our nation, our industries and our communities. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question. 14:48 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia As a senator representing South Australia, I welcome the investment in Osborne and the shipbuilding industry. But can the minister outline what else the government is doing for my home state of South Australia and for Victoria, which have been affected by the closure of the auto industry? 14:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Fawcett. The government has announced the $100 million advanced manufacturing fund in the last budget. We're working in collaboration with businesses in Victoria and South Australia to help them move into new markets. This week, I will announce nearly $30 million in grants to 20 businesses in Victoria and South Australia. These grants will leverage an additional $89 million from successful applicants. This is, in total, a $119 million investment in manufacturing for South Australia and Victoria. I will shortly be opening an additional grant round to give industries the best opportunity to compete, to grow and to prosper. This is real money being invested in manufacturing in Victoria and South Australia. 14:50 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Again, I welcome that support for businesses. Can the minister apprise the Senate of what the government is doing for the workers who have been affected by this transition? 14:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We recognise that for some of the workers at Holden and Toyota this is an uncertain time. My message to those workers is that you will continue to be supported after the closures. We will work with you so that you have the necessary skills to get into new jobs. Holden advises that 75 per cent of Holden workers have found new jobs or have retired and that another 10 per cent are entering full-time study. Every Holden worker has had access to transition services and up to $3,000 in approved training. Let's remember that the industry will retain over 2,000 engineers, designers and technicians maintaining Australia's world-class automotive design and engineering capability. Immigration Detention 44 14:51 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to Senator Cash, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister Dutton has decided that Australia's Manus Island immigration prison will close in just 15 days. I note that the men you have detained there for over 4½ years remain your government's responsibility, as has been made clear on numerous occasions by the UNHCR and by Minister Dutton, when he said just last week in regard to offering transfer to Nauru: 'We,'—that is, we, Minister—'are putting these options on the table.' Is it still your intention to close your Manus Island prison on 31 October? What will you do with the many hundreds of our fellow human beings who have suffered so greatly at your hands and the hands of the Labor Party? Where will they sleep? Will they have access to adequate medical care after 31 October? 14:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator McKim, for the question. I am going to have to disagree, obviously, as you and I do on these occasions, with the way that you have described the Manus Regional Processing Centre. In relation to your question, is the government going to close the Manus Regional Processing Centre? The answer is yes. Papua New Guinea, with Australia's support, will close the Manus Regional Processing Centre by 31 October 2017. The PNG Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority have established alternative accommodation and service arrangements in Manus Province. Refugees who have expressed an interest in US resettlement may also volunteer to transfer to Nauru. Non-refugee residents are expected to return home voluntarily and will be assisted to do so. Nonrefugees not returning voluntarily will be involuntarily removed from PNG by the government of PNG. Can I again say that the question that needs to be asked is: why? Why is anybody on Manus Island in the first instance? It is not because Labor and Liberal put them there. As you know, when you were in coalition with the former Labor government you lost control of the borders and, as a result, to this day it is those of us on this side of the chamber who continue to clean up your mess. There were 50,000 people who arrived on over 800 boats and 1,200 deaths at sea that we know about, and let's not even get started on the thousands of children who were placed in detention. (Time expired) 14:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Yes, not drowning, just being tortured. Minister, my supplementary question is this: will you categorically rule out the use of force to remove refugees from the Manus Island prison, and will you further categorically rule out cutting off water and electricity from the Manus Island prison in order to coerce people to leave? 14:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, unfortunately, with the way that Senator McKim has characterised his question, absolutely none of it relates to what this government is doing in supporting the PNG government. As I've stated, it is not a prison, and, Senator McKim, you know that torture can never be used. Quite frankly, it is an insult that you would even raise that. The PNG government, with the support of the Australian government, will close the Manus Island regional processing centre by the 31st— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKim on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM The point of order is on relevance. The two questions were abundantly clear and specific. Firstly, will the minister rule out the use of force to remove people from the Manus Island detention centre? And, secondly, will she explicitly rule out cutting off water and electricity to coerce people out? I'd ask you to remind her of the questions and urge her to answer them. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator McKim. In doing so, I will indicate that the minister was addressing points in your preamble. But, yes, I will remind the minister of the questions. Senator CASH I0M As Senator McKim well knows, anybody will be removed by lawful means. Senator McKim JKM So you won't rule out force and you won't rule out cutting off water and sewerage— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, Senator McKim! Do you have a final supplementary question? Senator McKim JKM This stuff just absolutely beggars belief, Mr President. The PRESIDENT e5v Your question, Senator McKim. 14:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, do you agree that even those who originally may not have been refugees are now owed a duty of care by Australia due to the harm you have caused them and the lives you have destroyed for 4½ years? Will you now finally do the right thing and bring the men, women and children you've imprisoned on Manus Island and Nauru here to Australia so we can look after them properly? 14:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, unfortunately, I have to reject the premise of everything that Senator McKim has said in relation to the categorisation of the Manus Regional Processing Centre. Senator McKim, we are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to this issue. We are cleaning up the mess that you created when you, with the former Labor government, lost control of our borders. As I've already stated, 50,000 people came to this country illegally on over 800 boats. Twelve hundred people, Senator McKim, lost their lives at sea—those are the ones we know of. Over 8,000 IMA children were detained, and, at the height of the policy failure, there were almost 2,000 children in detention. For once in your life, could you please take responsibility for your actions. Private Health Insurance 46 14:58 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Minister Nash. Last week the government announced changes to private health insurance which the Prime Minister promised would 'make private health insurance affordable'. What guarantee can the minister provide that premiums will be cheaper as a result? 14:58 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I thank the senator for her question. I commend the health minister for the very wide ranging package of health reforms we saw last week, including the work around the private health insurance reform. This is an area where we're looking to reform to make private health insurance simpler and more affordable for Australians. It's interesting to note that as part of that the insurers have given written guarantee that every dollar will be passed on to lowering premiums—in answer to the senator's question. I think it's very important that we look at the simplification of the system—moving, obviously, to gold, silver, bronze and basic standards—to make it much clearer for consumers to traverse the sometimes complicated private health insurance sector. After consultation with the private health insurance and medical sectors, the government has agreed to stop the Commonwealth rebate for a range of natural therapies—such as Bowen therapy, Rolfing and reiki—which was a key recommendation, I note, from the Chief Medical Officer. One thing we won't do, though, is Labor's plan to abolish basic coverage, which would remove the choice for pensioners and lower income families. We are very proud of this reform, and I think again the health minister has been very comprehensive last week in bringing forward the range of health reforms that he has. Families and older Australians are going to benefit from these reforms in particular, and we note that, for the coalition, families and older Australians and their access to health care are a key priority. So I am very pleased to be able to stand here today and make some comments around the private health insurance reform—again, a key initiative from the coalition government, delivering for the Australian people. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brown, a supplementary question 15:00 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I note the minister did not provide that guarantee that premiums will be cheaper. Private health insurance groups have admitted that the changes will shave just $34 from an expected $200-a-year premium hike next year. Does the minister agree the changes may reduce premium increases by as little as 65c per week for a family? Is this what the Prime Minister meant by making insurance affordable? 15:01 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales No, I don't agree, and I refer the senator to my previous answer, where I did refer to the fact that insurance had given a written guarantee. An agreement with the Medical Technology Association of Australia was struck, passing on $1 billion in savings directly to consumers. I answered the senator's question directly in my previous answer. I would say it is this coalition government that is focused on ensuring we deliver good, equitable and affordable health care for people right across the country, and that includes within the area of private health insurance reform. It is because this government is focused on ensuring that we do that that we have seen the announcement for last week and we have seen the benefits that are going to be passed through to Australian consumers. We have seen this as a result of direct action around private health insurance reform for the Australian people. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brown, a final supplementary question. 15:02 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Following the announcement, some private health insurers have warned that premiums next year will still rise by more than four per cent. Can the minister explain to families and older Australians how another $200 rise in premiums next year is making their private health insurance affordable? 15:02 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Making private health insurance affordable is something that is key to Australian people. Again, I draw the senator's attention to the answers that I have given previously around the guarantees for affordability. But isn't it interesting that those opposite again choose to find an opportunity to be critical about things that are negative for the Australian people? What we have seen last week from the health minister is a very positive announcement in relation to private health insurance reform which has been very well received not only by the Australian people but also by the sector, and it would be rather beneficial if those on the other side could occasionally be more a little more productive and positive around the issues where we are delivering for the Australian people. We are delivering real reform around private health insurance, which the Australian people will benefit from. Senator Brandis 008W7 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 47 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:03 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CAMERON AI6 Today in question time Minister Cash made imputations that I had improper motives and she personally reflected on my conduct as a senator. That is highly disorderly. I indicated previously on 14 September—when I also made a personal explanation against allegations by this minister of my alleged improper motives with Luke Collier—that I had asked questions not of Mr Collier but of Fair Work Building and Construction. The questions I asked in the estimates hearing were not about Mr Collier's conduct but about whether or not Fair Work Building and Construction and its director, Mr Hadgkiss, had breached its obligations under the Privacy Act by publishing Mr Collier's criminal history in a media release on 8 October 2014. During my previous explanation, I indicated that, no matter who they are and what their personal history may be, the citizens of this country have a right to the protection of the law that includes the protections provided under the Privacy Act 1988. And, if it appears that a Commonwealth agency has trampled on the legal protections to which a person is entitled, then it is my duty as a senator to ensure that that agency is held to account. Following what I considered to be unsatisfactory answers given by Mr Hadgkiss at the estimates hearing, and on notice, I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner on 5 February 2015 asking that he investigate Fair Work Building and Construction's personal information handling practises and whether the publication of Mr Collier's personal information in a media release was for an authorised purpose. In a letter dated 20 February 2015, the Privacy Commissioner advised me that he would not open a commissioner-initiated investigation or conduct an assessment on the matter but he did indicate: It appears likely that the disclosure in the media release was for a secondary purpose. Whether the secondary purpose was authorised by the law would depend on the facts of the particular case and whether the disclosure was authorised by the Fair Work Building and Construction legislation. In order for the matter to be taken any further, it would have been up to Mr Collier to take action. I don't care one way or another whether he did or did not do so. My concern is that Commonwealth agencies comply with the law. Given recent developments in relation to a reckless breach of the law by Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, I believe that my concerns about his agency's compliance with the law in 2014 were justified, just as they are now. I also want to indicate that I have never defended Mr Collier or his conduct and I never will. I have never defended criminals, and my record in my public life demonstrates this. It's about time this minister stopped the attacks that are in breach of standing orders— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 and she should be held for account for breaching standing orders and continue to raise an issue which is quite untruthful. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Energy 47 15:07 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions asked by Senator Moore and myself today. Today in question time, Senator Brandis was asked a question concerning the outgoing BlueScope CEO, Mr Paul O'Malley, who last week told his company's AGM that BlueScope's electricity costs would rise by 93 per cent between 2016 and 2018. And I further asked the minister could he confirm that, after four years of Liberal National government, power prices have never been higher. The minister indicated in response he could not confirm either proposition. Can I perhaps draw the minister's attention to page 13 of the ACCC report, which the government has provided to every newspaper in the country today, which clearly indicates that the electricity prices in this country are at their highest level ever this year. I might also indicate that the outgoing CEO of BlueScope, Mr Paul O'Malley, in fact, did tell his AGM last week that the price for BlueScope's electricity costs are expected to rise by 93 per cent. And I also draw to the chamber's attention that the government's favourite newspaper, The Australian, has been provided with modelling which suggests that when gas prices are used the wholesale price of electricity spikes from $70 a megawatt upwards to $120 a megawatt, a cost that is ultimately passed on to consumers. So what we're seeing in this country is that Australia's largest energy users have been warning us that an estimated $9 billion in additional electricity and gas costs will feed through to the broader economy, threatening jobs and investments as business drives the pressures on Canberra to ease what has been a predicted power shortage. Now, the major companies, including brickmakers, supermarkets, soft drink bottlers and poultry producers, have all indicated that they are feeling the great pressures of the rise in energy prices right now, and that over the next two years these pressures will only grow because of the government's failure to recognise its role in terms of developing a coherent energy policy. Now, the surge in energy prices has forced businesses to defer investment decisions, with some of them actually thinking that they might have to move abroad. So we see the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—people who are not normally associated with supporting Labor—and Mr James Pearson making this point repeatedly. We see: We risk a double effect with energy prices hitting investment decisions, affecting demand for labour while also putting pressure on margins impacting the affordability of wage rises. Mr Pearson said that recently. What we've got is the Prime Minister saying that he's prepared to meet with the gas companies. He has, of course, met with them on several occasions now—he's had a good cup of tea with them. Instead of relying upon taking action, he has relied upon their good intentions to actually produce more gas for the Australian economy. And rather than taking action, we find the situation now in the spot price market that gas remains cheaper in Tokyo than it does in Australia—despite the claims made by the gas producers. What we do know is that the market domination by the energy generators is such now that we have 40 per cent price hikes—of course, doubling the increases that were announced in June. We see the situation in New South Wales—the Liberal state of New South Wales—with the Small Business Commissioner yesterday warning that power prices were rising far more than the expected 20 per cent surge. So what we've got is a government that has commissioned the Chief Scientist to come forward with a report to put a political fix in place. And this government has been offered the support across this parliament to put in place a national policy that will actually provide the investment certainty to secure downward price pressures. But it is a government that can't negotiate with itself, let alone negotiate across this parliament. What we've got is a government that is paralysed: paralysed by indecision and paralysed by fear—fear that this Prime Minister will be deposed by the knuckle draggers on the far right of the Liberal Party. They are now dominating the policy positions of this government rather than the national interest. Rather than a preoccupation with getting the national interest set into a policy framework, this is a government preoccupied with its own survival. (Time expired) 15:13 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory It's always good to follow Senator Carr— Senator Kim Carr AW5 I'm sure you love it! You just love it! Senator SESELJA HZE I do! I love it, because I love it when he fires up. The louder he is, often the less sense he makes. Can I go to the substance of the issue? If we cast our minds back to last summer when we saw the statewide blackout in South Australia, I think that there was great shock around the nation that a whole Australian state could actually be blacked out. I was reminded, as I contemplated it, of the Greens politician who said, 'We don't want to take you back to the caves just yet,' because that is the type of policy that Labor under Bill Shorten—and certainly Labor under Jay Weatherill—have been implementing. It is a policy that is about taking our nation backwards. It is a policy that is about de-industrialising Australia due to an absolutely mindless energy policy—which is now the national Labor policy—where we see the mindless pursuit of a 50 per cent renewable energy target in South Australia. That is Bill Shorten's policy and I'll get to the— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Seselja, I remind you to refer to people by their— Senator SESELJA HZE Thank you. That is Mr Shorten's policy— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Seselja, let me finish, please. I remind you to refer to people in the other place by their correct titles. Senator SESELJA HZE Indeed. Referring to Mr Shorten by his correct title, unfortunately, does not improve his policies at all. It does not improve the fact that the 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, the 45 per cent emissions reduction target and the policies for forced closures of coal-fired power plants will take us back as a nation to a place where we don't want to be. They will take the South Australian blackout model and put that on a national stage. We were asked about electricity prices. Let's look at what they were under the Labor Party when they were last in government, because we know that if they come back it's going to be worse. But this is what happened when they were in coalition with the Greens last time. We saw national average residential electricity prices increasing by an average of 10.3 per cent a year between 2009-10 and 2013-14. We saw the average price increase from 19.4c to 28.6c per kilowatt hour. Then, of course, due to the repeal of the carbon tax, we saw residential electricity prices fall between 2013-14 and 2015-16. So, if you look at the policy decisions that have been taken by the coalition government, things like repealing the carbon tax, they lead to a reduction in price. As we see, the policy decisions that were taken by the former Labor government, including a carbon tax, saw massive increases in electricity prices across the board. The alternative couldn't be clearer. The coalition policy is about gas reservation policy, abolishes limited merits review, has Snowy Hydro 2.0, and seeks to work with power companies to keep coal-fired power stations open longer so that we can get the kind of base load that we need, that our industries need, that workers in this country need and that householders need in order to keep prices down—or we could go to the alternative model that has been put forward by Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Australian Labor Party nationally. Their policy is the South Australian Labor policy, which has seen statewide blackouts and sees South Australia having the highest energy prices in the nation. Mr Bill Shorten wants to take that policy nationally with a 50 per cent renewable energy target. There is no modelling as to what that might cost. Fancy an alternative Prime Minister going to the Australian people and saying, 'Look, we've got this you-beaut new policy; it's been tried in South Australia, it's led to the highest energy prices in the country and it's led to statewide blackouts and South Australia becoming the butt of national jokes as a result of its energy policies'! Mr Bill Shorten is saying, without telling us how much it's going to cost, that he wants to make that policy national. Well, we can guarantee one thing: it's going to cost a lot. It's going to push prices up. It's going to see more blackouts. It's going to see less energy security. This is the policy platform being put forward by the ALP, and we will certainly not be matching it. (Time expired) 15:18 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I too rise to take note of the answers by Senator Brandis to the questions from Senator Moore and Senator Carr during question time today. Senator Seselja has got on that familiar high horse and is attempting to kick South Australia, but people really need to understand the situation in South Australia. In 1997, it was the Liberal Premier John Olsen who went to an election promising not to privatise the Electricity Trust of South Australia. He promised. He got elected, and in 1998 he privatised it. Straight in, breaking his election promise to the South Australian people, he privatised the Electricity Trust of South Australia. With 20-20 hindsight, we know it was an incredibly dud deal. To get the highest price he possibly could, he rejected Riverlink, which would have connected South Australia with New South Wales. He rejected that for short-term financial gain for his Liberal government, and that has cost South Australians $1 billion to $2 billion in increased prices. That's the reality of the situation in South Australia. The South Australian Liberal government promised not to privatise and then privatised and sold us a dud into the future, guaranteeing that the new owners would roll in cash and that we weren't properly connected to the National Electricity Market. Those are the actual facts of the matter. There was a one-in-50-years storm which knocked over kilometres of lines and pylons and caused a lot of blackouts in South Australia. But what happened? What happened is that the National Electricity Market encourages major operators to sit out of the market so the price goes from $30 or $50 a megawatt-hour to $10,000. I can prove this. Snowy Hydro, the only supplier in the nation that has been fined by the regulator for sitting out of the market or failing to follow the instruction of the regulator, was fined $400,000 for breaching the rules. And guess what? It's owned by the federal government, the New South Wales government and the Victorian government. And it's quite clear: in its original statement of claim, the regulator stated Snowy Hydro deliberately ignored dispatch instructions so it could take advantage of an unforeseen and unforecast increase in demand. That's the electricity market that we have. When there is a demand like was occasioned by this storm in South Australia, does the regulator come in and put everybody on the board? There are allegations that a gas power station in South Australia deliberately waited until there was a blackout so it could make more money. This is the market we have got. It's not about wind. It's not about solar. It's about a broken electricity market which encourages major operators to sit out of the market until there's an unforeseen event or an unforeseen demand and the price goes from $30 a megawatt-hour or $50 a megawatt-hour to $10,000. That great icon of Australia, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, sitting up there paid for by generations of taxpayers, works at 14 per cent of capacity. It has turbines that can connect to the grid in 90 seconds. Are they doing that on a regular basis? No, they're sitting there waiting for a spike in demand caused by an unfortunate event like a weather outage or a seasonal demand of electricity for air conditioning. They're not contributing in an even flow. Fourteen per cent of capacity—check their annual report. To add insult to injury, an entity owned by the federal government, New South Wales government and the Victorian government has been fined for not following the regulator's requirements. So it's not fair for Senator Brandis to come in here and say: 'The South Australian government made wrong decisions about wind and solar. The South Australian government has made the wrong decisions about clean energy.' Have a look at the real problem: there is generating capacity in Australia that is not contributing on an even basis. You sit out of the market until there's an event and you profit as much as you can. And the Liberals brought it in. (Time expired) 15:23 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Senator Gallacher was quite amazing! What happened to Port Augusta? The renewable energy target was taken to 20 per cent and some 44,000 gigs by the Rudd Labor government, Senator Gallacher. One turbine at Jamestown, where I grew up, gets a $700,000-a-year subsidy for renewable energy certificates. At $82, it spins for eight hours a day at three megawatt-hours. That is $700,000 for a wind turbine before they sell one watt of electricity, so it allows them to sell it cheaply. Yes, the national market is crazy, but why did the Port Augusta coal-fired power station go broke? It was because of the wind turbines and the huge subsidies that everyone is paying for when they pay their power bill. What amazes me is that the Labor Party and the Greens are on about the clean energy target. I refer to Dr Finkel's recommendation of 42 per cent. You see, the reason the Labor Party and the Greens want a clean energy target that's high is that it means they can drop their carbon tax come the next election. That's what it's all about. If there's not a large clean energy target—and I hope there's not because the cost is too outrageous for business and will shift businesses overseas—the Labor Party will go to the next election saying, 'We'll fix energy; we'll fix the environment; we'll bring in a carbon tax.' It's quite amazing. The whole story of how the Greens are going to block the Adani mine is amazing. There are 621 units of coal-fired power generation being constructed around the world, as I speak now. A unit is one generator. There are 299 units of coal-fired generation being constructed in China now to add to their 2,107 units already operating. Those 299 units of coal-fired generation being constructed in China now will produce 670 million tonnes of CO2. All emissions in Australia total about 550 million tonnes, but let's not sell them clean Australian coal—oh, no, block the coalmines! The Greens and the Labor Party must realise these coal-fired generators being constructed are going to burn—what? Believe it or not, they're going to burn coal. They're trying to block Australia from providing that coal, so China will use their dirty brown coal, which they're actually a net exporter of, and then buy dirty brown coal off Indonesia. If the Labor Party and the Greens have their way, China won't buy Australia's clean coal from Adani. They won't buy black coal, which is more effective, produces more heat and, hence, produces more electricity. No, we should shut all the mines down here. It's beyond me why the CFMEU donate to the Labor Party—and they've donated to the Greens before as well, by the way. Why have they donated to a party that does not support mining, construction, forestry or energy? Apparently, we're going to change the planet. While everyone's building these coal-fired power generators, we're not going to supply them coal. Of course they're going to get coal from elsewhere. Are we going to change the 1.4 per cent of the world's CO2 that Australia emits? No. It is a green religion that will lead us to the land of poverty. That's what it'll do. The costs are already going up. A 50 per cent clean energy target is being pursued in Victoria and South Australia, where I grew up—how embarrassing it is. A new battery is going to be built at Jamestown, where I grew up and where my great-great-grandfather settled in the 1800s. The battery will run the state for about 4½ minutes. When things shut down there will be no coal-fired generation—the Hazelwood power station is gone—and South Australia will, once again, become the darkened state. The amazing cost of electricity down there is outrageous. What will we do then? We'll close businesses down in Australia and shift manufacturing businesses overseas, just like we've done in the motor vehicle industry. There are clean energy targets, renewable energy targets, carbon taxes, costs et cetera. You have General Motors America shutting Holden down, Ford America shutting Ford Australia down and Toyota Japan shutting Toyota down and you wonder why. In this country we wallow in energy, whether it is nuclear, coal or gas, yet we're paying some of the most expensive energy prices of all the OECD countries. What's Labor's solution? It is a 50 per cent clean energy target, a carbon tax and more of the South Australian treatment. It's more of what you've done to the state of South Australia. You've put the costs through the roof and kept the subsidies going. Renewable energy is a good thing and it goes on for a long time, but if renewables want to grow in Australia they must compete on a level playing field, not be paid $700,000 for one wind tower a year. Pensioners and businesses are paying—everyone's paying. This can't go on and we need to change the whole attitude. A 42 per cent clean energy target would also be hugely expensive. Dr Finkel had it wrong about the forecast of energy— (Time expired) 15:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Back on 1 February, the Prime Minister stood up in the National Press Club and he said that energy would be the defining debate in this parliament. Well, it has been the defining debate, although, probably not quite in the way that Mr Turnbull might have hoped because it is, in fact, the debate around energy that has completely and, I suspect, fatally defined Mr Turnbull. It's defined him as a leader who has completely lost control of his party and is unable to act on rational policy advice, whether it is received from academics, from our professional scientists or from the business community. Mr Turnbull is paralysed in relation to the energy debate because he is beholden to the people in his party who are determined to act against all rationality. They are determined to continue to insist that the future of energy in this country lies in coal, when, in fact, what everybody tells us is that all that is required is a certain investment framework and industry will do the rest. But a policy that will do that, like the clean energy target that was proposed by Mr Finkel and that was until very recently endorsed by the Minister for Energy, can't stand up because in the coalition party room people have the gravity-defying belief that our future lies in new coal-fired power generation. There hasn't been much action this year—no action on energy, despite the fact that this is a crisis that's engulfing business and it's engulfing households. What we have had are a lot of reports. We've had reports from the AEMC, we've had reports from AEMO and we've had a report from Mr Finkel. And today, of course, we had a report from the ACCC. Well, I've looked carefully at that report today and I'll tell you what it does contain: it contains a lot of stories about the impact that rising prices are having on businesses. Today, we asked the minister about BlueScope. The report says that BlueScope has achieved $300 million in cost savings across their Australian steel operations in the last couple of years, and that's an extraordinary result. But, despite that, they are faced with a near doubling of their electricity costs since 2016. Now, all of the bluster in the world can't sheet that home to Labor. Last time I looked, in 2016 the coalition was in power. Companies like BlueScope are faced with a genuine crisis in the cost inputs to their businesses. What you also won't find in that report is the assertion made again and again by Senator Brandis that the drivers of these cost increases are environmental costs, because that's not what the report says at all. The report says that the drivers of these costs are network costs. It actually found that in terms of the entire cost of electricity, environmental related costs make up only seven per cent of the cost that people are paying. And, in that context, this argument that if we could only get rid of our environmental commitments we'd have cheap electricity is ludicrous. The key components of the cost increases have not been associated with environmental schemes. We'd do much better, in fact, to rely on Mr Frydenberg, the Minister for the Environment and Energy—plagued of course by being constantly undermined by the hardliners in the coalition. Fairly recently, Mr Frydenberg made a presentation to the coalition party room and he indicated that he endorsed the Finkel review's conclusions that there would be a 10 per cent saving for households against business as usual if we implemented a clean energy target. He provided the other conclusion that Finkel came up with through his modelling, which was that there would be a 16 per cent reduction in costs against business as usual for business if we implemented a clean energy target. The truth is that everybody in industry knows this to be true. All that is required is some policy certainty, a policy that links together our objectives around energy, our objectives around environment and our objectives around competition in that market. But we have been waiting for four years. This government is in its fifth year; there has been no action and it is principally because the Prime Minister has his hands tied behind his back. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Immigration Detention 51 15:33 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to the immigration detention centre on Manus Island. It is now just 15 short days until Australia's Manus Island prison will be closed. Now, this was a deadline put in place by immigration minister Peter Dutton—a self-imposed deadline—and it was confirmed today in the Senate by the government that the Australian government will close that facility by 31 October. What we also know is that this government has no idea and no plan whatsoever in regard to what to do with the many hundreds of men who have been imprisoned on Manus Island by the Labor and Liberal parties in this place, so many of whom have had their lives utterly destroyed by the torture, by the deliberate harm that's been caused to them, by the murders they have witnessed, by the riots, the beatings and the machete attacks, and by the Good Friday attack, when drunken members of the Papua New Guinean navy fired over a hundred shots into the Manus Island prison inside the Lombrum Naval Base and loaded up a Toyota HiLux ute and tried to ram it through the gates so that they could attack refugees inside this centre. Offshore detention has been a stain on this country's soul for far too long, and it's a stain that's been put there by the Labor and Liberal parties in this parliament. It will continue to be a stain on the soul of this country until every single man, woman and child currently incarcerated on Manus Island and Nauru is brought out of detention and to safety here in Australia. I say to the Labor and Liberal parties in this place: you are complicit in torture. You are complicit in causing deliberate harm to people. You are complicit in sex abuse, including child sex abuse. You are complicit in murder, in rape and in riot because you have put people in a situation that you knew, or ought to have known, would increase the likelihood of those things happening. Your complicity in deliberately inflicting human misery on these people will never be forgotten. Labor's cowardice in reopening the Manus Island detention centre and indefinitely detaining people there in 2012 will never be forgotten. There will be a reckoning for these crimes at some stage. People will be held to account, and apologies will be delivered. For now, the situation is urgent. In fact, we have a crisis on our hands. Men on Manus Island are at breaking point today because they do not know what is going to happen to them in just two short weeks time when the Australian government closes its Manus Island prison. As we learned today, the government has no idea what is going to happen to those people. However, what we do know is that today Minister Cash refused and failed to rule out the use of force to remove people from the Manus Island prison and refused to rule out cutting off water and electricity to Australia's Manus Island prison inside the Lombrum Naval Base in order to coerce people to leave. We know that Australia has a track record of using water and electricity and access to those things to coerce people because they've already done it to move people around inside Australia's Manus Island prison in the Lombrum detention centre. For pity's sake, Minister, and your friends on the other side in the Labor Party: close those camps now, but bring those people here to Australia. They have to be evacuated. We've got an emergency on our hands created by the Labor and Liberal parties acting in lock step in this place, as they always do on these matters. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 52 NOTICES Presentation 52 BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 55 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bilyk for the parliamentary week beginning today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Withdrawal 55 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Chisholm, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 511 relating to a statement by Senator O'Sullivan. BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 55 15:40 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 19 October 2017 at the time for private senators’ bills: No. 65 Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 No. 48 Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 55 15:40 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Fierravanti-Wells from 16 October to 18 October 2017, on account of ministerial reasons; (b) Senator Macdonald from 16 October to 18 October 2017, on account of parliamentary reasons; and (c) Senator Sinodinos from 16 October to 7 December 2017, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Postponement 55 COMMITTEES 55 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee 55 Reporting Date 55 MOTIONS 55 MOTIONS Medicare 55 15:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Determination 2017 made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 15 August 2017. Question agreed to. National Carers' Week 56 15:42 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I, and on behalf of Senators Brockman, Siewert and Smith, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 15 to 21 October 2017 is National Carers Week and that it is estimated that there are 2.7 million carers who provide care and support to a family member or friend with a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness, or who is frail aged in Australia, and (ii) the theme for National Carers Week is 'Carers Count'; (b) acknowledges the significant contribution that carers make to the Australian community, saving the nation an estimated $60 billion per year; and (c) recognises the sacrifices carers make in the loss of the opportunity to work and to participate fully in the life of the community. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 56 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Voting Age 56 15:42 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today two 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 a letter has been received from Senator Siewert: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: 'The suggestion that young Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 be blocked from participating in democracy by raising the voting age to 21.' Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP 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. 15:44 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak on this issue today, and it's an important issue because we know that right here in this place there is a member of this Senate, Senator Pauline Hanson, who has suggested that young people aged between 18 and 21 should not be allowed to vote. She's said it several times. She said it on national television only two weeks ago. She was given an opportunity to clarify, and she doubled down. Senator Pauline Hanson thinks that young people do not deserve the right to vote. She wants to strip Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 of their right to vote, a right they currently have. That's almost a million young people that Senator Hanson believes don't deserve to have their say, apparently because, in her own words, they don't have jobs, they don't pay taxes and they know nothing about politics. What a load of rubbish! In Australia, of course, you can be working long before you're aged 21. You can get married. You can run a business. You can even sit in the federal parliament currently, and, of course, you can even serve in the Australian Defence Force. It is just unthinkable that Senator Pauline Hanson would suggest that young people don't have a right to have their say. If it came down to the arguments that Senator Hanson has put out as to why young people shouldn't have a right to vote—she says they're not informed enough to vote and they lack experience, knowledge or intelligence—I tell you what: I wonder what Senator Pauline Hanson would do being right here. She would be the first out the door if it came to having to be informed about the issues that we debate in this place—and quickly after her, may I point out, Senator Malcolm Roberts as well, and probably the rest of her merry, silly men. The truth is young people are engaged in politics. They desperately want to have their say, and they have every right to. Just in the last couple of months, we've seen almost 100,000 young people sign up to the electoral roll so that they could have their say in the marriage equality postal survey. The majority are voting yes. The question is: why would Senator Hanson want to strip these young people of their right to have their say? Well, it's just like how One Nation want to gag and cut funding to the ABC because they don't like what the ABC reports, and so it follows. One Nation don't like what young people think, what they care about and how they vote. Because they don't like it, they don't want them to have their say. Once this issue was made public, once Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation confirmed they didn't think young people should have the right to vote, the phones in electorate offices ran hot, letters to the editor were typed out and the social media frenzy was on. Young people across this country are outraged that they risk having their right to vote taken from them. You might think this is some fringe, crazy idea, but, of course, One Nation sit in this chamber and negotiate day in, day out with the government. They say all the time, 'We want to get our policy through.' They demand concessions from the government. They wanted to cut the ABC. They wanted to beat up on the ABC and the public broadcasters. Now look what's happened: the government have rolled over for them. So we can't be complacent. Young people have every right to feel terrified and angry that Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation want to disenfranchise them come the next election. It is simply unfair that we live in a nation where we could send somebody to war, where we sign young people up to be in the Defence Force, and yet we have a senator in this parliament who says those same young people don't deserve a right to have their say in a democracy. It is just mean-spirited, pathetic and gutless that One Nation would say these young people don't deserve their right to have their say because One Nation don't think that young people vote for their political party. Well, guess what: not every person in Australia believes and agrees with what the Greens say, not everybody agrees with and believes in what the government says and not everybody agrees with what any political party in this place says, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to have their say and a right to cast their vote. It is a democracy. At a time when we should be encouraging more people to participate, particularly young people, it is just gutless and pathetic to have a leader of a political party in this place suggest that over a million current voters should have their vote stripped from them. The arguments for it are that they don't have a job; they don't pay taxes; they don't have any idea of what's going on. Okay, we all know that that's rubbish and not true, but who comes next then? Once One Nation have stripped the rights for young people to vote, who will they come after next? Will it be Muslim Australians? Asian Australians? If it's about not paying taxes, will it be people on the disability pension? We heard Senator Malcolm Roberts say earlier today that he thinks that people on welfare live better than kings did 200 years ago. Are we going to start taking the right for people to vote away from those who are on welfare benefits? Senator Dastyari 225099 Let them eat cake! Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Is it simply: no vote, but let them eat cake? Are these the bright ideas coming from the One Nation political party? You don't like what people say and you don't like how they vote, so you're going to gag them, disenfranchise them and ban them from the electoral roll. It's pathetic, but it's dangerous. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation are no friends of young Australians. 15:51 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I find myself in an interesting position in this debate, in the middle of two equally silly propositions. On one side we have One Nation, which is very naively and ridiculously proposing to disenfranchise young people by removing their right to vote—to turn back the clock more than 40 years and take away the rights of about a million Australians to vote. That is obviously a ridiculous and silly proposition and, I'll say from the outset, not one that the government endorses or will entertain or will enact. But equally, on the other side of the coin, we have, in my view, an equally silly notion from the Greens that we should lower the voting age to include 16- and 17-year-olds. I only came in halfway through Senator Hanson-Young's contribution, so I'm not sure if she referred to it in this speech—she certainly didn't in the second half of her speech—but it's an idea that the Greens have promoted in the past that we should lower the voting age to include 16- and 17-year-olds. We're smack bang in the middle of this debate. On the government benches we believe that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The existing voting age of 18 years makes eminent good sense. There is no need to increase it or lower it. There's no need to disenfranchise young people who already have the vote. To be honest, these ideas are so silly I think I'm going to seriously struggle to fill the 10 minutes that I've been allocated in this debate, but I will do my very best, and there are some important issues that can be discussed here. As we all know, it's outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that 18 years is the age at which you become entitled to vote. This issue was examined after the 2007 federal election when the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters discussed what the appropriate minimum age should be for provisional enrolment. They did recommend that the minimum age for voluntary provisional enrolment be lowered from 17 to 16 years but did not recommend lowering the voting age. We believe that 18 is the right and appropriate age and should remain the legal age, because it is the age at which you are considered an adult in so many other areas of life. It is the age at which you are allowed to legally purchase alcohol. You're allowed to legally gamble. You're allowed to become a company director or to sign a contract. It's an age where, if you wish to enlist in military service, you are most commonly first allowed to do so. These are very important decisions in someone's life, and we recognise that at 18 years of age you've amassed sufficient life experience, skills and knowledge to exercise those. It was last changed in 1973 to lower the age to 18, and we don't think that there's any need to revisit that. My experience when I talk to young people—being a younger person myself—is that the age at which they have a right to vote is not their No. 1 concern. There are certainly plenty of precocious 16- and 17-year-olds—as I was once, as I know Senator McGrath was once, as I know Senator Dastyari was once, not all that long ago—that are very excited and anticipating their right to vote for the first time when they turn 18 and can't wait to have their say. None of them have seriously suggested to me that we should lower the voting or age or have lobbied seriously to do that. What they do approach me about is the issues that impact them. They're more interested in the way government impacts on their lives and the policies that government has that impact their lives than in the process and the detail of how it does so. When I talk to young people, what I hear from them most consistently is concern about their economic future and a desire to know that, when they graduate from high school or university or any other study that they do, there will be a good job for them to find that they will be able to apply for and receive. They tell me about their concern about their ability to enter the housing market and their ability to pay off a mortgage. They are worried about housing affordability. They raise that with me consistently. They also raise with me the amount of debt that current generations are leaving to future generations. I make these observations not in any partisan sense. These have always been the concerns of young people. I suspect they always will be the concerns of young people. If we are, in all seriousness, interested in addressing the things most important to young people, we would be much better advised to focus on these practical, real things that impact their lives. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that has a very strong focus on providing jobs and a strong performance in providing jobs. In the last 12 months 300,000 jobs were created, which is a remarkable achievement and which will ensure that young people finishing study and looking to enter the workforce for the first time have something to look forward to, a bright economic future to be excited about and something to apply for and strive for. On housing, we all acknowledge that housing affordability is not good in this day and age. Young people do struggle with it, and my friends and people in my age group are chief amongst those who struggle with it. That's something this government takes very seriously and is addressing. One of the measures in the most recent federal budget was the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which allows young people to utilise the tax-preferred superannuation system to save for a deposit for their first home. This will allow them to save for a deposit more quickly and more easily than they otherwise would have been able to. On debt, I noticed in the financial statement issued by the finance minister last week that gross debt is now at $560 billion. That's more than anyone in this place should be comfortable with and more than anyone in this place should want. It is something that we should all be working much harder to address and to lower. It is not moral at all to leave young people growing up today with the burdens of debt that this generation has accrued by spending more on consumption today than we have been raising in revenue to meet the costs of. There is nothing moral about that at all. It's something that needs, in my view, far stronger action to address. It's certainly something this government has attempted to address. Had it not been for our attempts, the state of the budget and state of debt would have been far worse today than they are. We've been able to significantly bring down the trajectory of debt increases that were bequeathed by the former government. We've managed to rein that in substantially, and we should be very proud of that, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more work to do. It is incumbent on this chamber in particular to consider its role in assisting the government to do that. In recent years, many attempts the government has made to reduce spending in order to reduce the deficit and ultimately to begin paying back the debt and reducing the debt within our lifetimes have been thwarted by this chamber or, more accurately, by parties who used their numbers in this chamber to stop the government's attempts. I think they should reflect on that when they come into this place and say that they're here to be advocates on behalf of young people and young people's interests. They should think very carefully about the votes they have made in this place in recent years which have gone very much against the interests of young people who will soon, when they do graduate and take on jobs, begin to pay back not just the expenses of running the government of the day in their lifetimes but the expenses of running the government of our day in our lifetimes because we weren't able to do so. That's a profoundly immoral thing. To re-emphasise, the government has no plans to lower or increase the age of voting. We think it's a distraction. We think it's unnecessary. We think we should be focused on much more practical and pragmatic issues that are on the top of the minds of most young people—particularly those who don't follow politics every day, who don't watch question time every day and who don't follow us on Twitter but who just want to get on with their lives. They're much more interested— Senator Dastyari 225099 Whoa! Senator PATERSON 144138 It's a hard concept to wrap your head around, Senator Dastyari! I know you in particular would be mortified to know there are young people who haven't seen one of your Facebook videos, but it's true. They are out there, and they're not particularly interested in your videos or my videos or in the voting age. What they are interested in is the economic security they hope to have when they grow up and the economic security they hope to have for their children when they eventually have them. It's worth pointing out the delicious irony, when we hear about the higher rates of engagement of young people with the marriage survey and, of course, the record enrolment of all people—but particularly young people—on the electoral roll as a result of the marriage survey, that those things came about due to a policy staunchly opposed by those opposite and those on the crossbench. In a funny way, young people have been motivated more by participating in this survey than any normal election, than any normal choice between political leaders, because it is an issue that affects them and their friends and they want to have their say on it. I encourage them and congratulate them for doing so. The government will not be engaging in any consideration of this, recognising that it is, of course, really an attempt from One Nation to play to their base and the Greens to play to their base, when it's incumbent on parties of government to be sensible on these issues and not change things that don't need changing. 16:01 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales I think it's incumbent upon me to begin by addressing the slanderous, offensive and hurtful comments of Senator Paterson moments earlier, when he seemed to say that there are young Australians out there who aren't interested in the social media videos of Australian politicians! I think the senator should take some time to reflect on those comments and perhaps give a personal explanation later in the chamber! The ridiculousness of the proposition that we're going to actually look at increasing the voting age in this era is a demonstration of how obscenely out of touch One Nation are with a generation of future voting Australians. Not only are their views on issues like climate change clearly out of the ordinary, not only do their views on issues like marriage equality and other matters set them apart from young Australians, but they go so far as to try to disenfranchise them from participating in the political process. I have a different view than my party has on the issue of voting age. I have consistently had a different view from the Labor Party. And, of my many failures in Australian politics and certainly in Labor politics, one of them has been my inability to convince the Labor Party to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. It's a position I have had for a long period of time, it's one I have argued in party circles and it is one for which I have consistently lost every senior party vote that I've tried to win. But I live in faith and I live in hope. I do believe there is a generation of young Australians that should be enfranchised, a generation of young Australians that can be enfranchised, and I'm sick and tired of this idea that we hear in politics a lot: that young people are not interested in politics or not interested in this and that. I think Senator Paterson was correct when he made the point that they may not be interested in organised politics as we know it but are certainly engaged on issues. They're certainly engaged on issues that matter to them. Have a look at the amount of energy and excitement involved in the postal survey, a survey that many of us believe shouldn't happen and doesn't need to happen. We kept hearing reports that young people weren't going to vote, that they weren't going to participate, that they weren't going to show up, and every bit of anecdotal and empirical evidence—that's right, empirical evidence—that we have available to us shows that they do care, they are interested and they want to engage. Housing affordability is an issue across Australia. In particular it's an issue in our capital cities. Within our capital cities, perhaps in Sydney more than anywhere else, it is a huge issue. It is another issue where a generation of young Australians does care, is passionate and is interested. The notion that we will change our voting age in this vibrant, successful democracy for the sole purpose of disenfranchising more people is a ridiculous assertion. Frankly, I'd like to one day be in a position where we could be voting to lower it rather than to increase it. On the issue of lowering it, I want to make one observation on the record. I note that, in cases like the Scottish independence referendum and at other times, there have been trials where different nations have been looking at 16- and 17-year-olds participating in the democratic process. I note that there is a slight misconception that younger voters are necessarily more progressive. I think an interesting observation—there's quite a bit of data that shows this—for those of us on the left of politics who may look at an age group of 18 to 24 and say, 'Well, 16- to 17-year-olds are likely to vote that way,' is that the data that exists actually shows they're disproportionately more conservative and less left wing than their counterparts who are a little bit older than them. There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories that, when everyone talks about lowering the voting age, it's simply an attempt to put on more centre-left voters with the objective of stacking the system. Frankly, the data proves that it's not. There is issue after issue that we need to be dealing with as a nation. There are long-term decisions on issues like climate, education, equality, simple economic sensibilities and the burden that will be placed on future generations if we have either debt growing the way it has been or increasing inequality and the consequences of that. To say that in this day and age the response to this should be excluding people from participating in the process, I think, shows just how out of touch One Nation is. Those who are 18 to 21 are making big decisions about their lives, and they have a big role to play in the future of this country. But I tell you what makes it even more outrageous to be having this debate: today is the day that the New South Wales HSC has started. Can I just say to the many students who are going through the HSC today: it's not as big a deal as you think it is, but I'm glad I never have to go through it again. Still, 15 years later, I will occasionally wake thinking I have a HSC exam that I'm late to. I admit I don't come to this with the best of records when it comes to attendance. In my final year of school I dishonourably graduated with 100 unexplained absences. That's right: I failed to show up to school on 100 different occasions, which, considering 12 weeks of leave and weekends, is quite an achievement in itself. How I was never expelled remains a mystery, and I'm using the Senate now to thank my year 12 principal, Tony Fugaccia from Baulkham Hills High School, for either having faith in me or realising the paperwork of expulsion wasn't worth it. I went on to university, where I failed at med school. I got kicked out of Sydney Law School by the dean, Gillian Triggs herself, unfairly for the sole transgression of not having shown up to five years of classes. This is the same Gillian Triggs who came on to become Human Rights Commissioner. I say to those in this chamber who speak ill of her: if you think you have a problem with Gillian Triggs, consider what it's like to be kicked out of law school by her. Finally, I finished my studies at the amazing Macquarie University. My message is that we live in a land of better chances. Even though I wasn't good enough for high school, med school or law school—a decision that Gillian Triggs re-endorsed when recently launching my book—the good people of New South Wales, in their great wisdom, decided that they were going to give me the toughest punishment of all: they'd send me to the Australian Senate to be with you lot. Kids, good luck and best wishes. If you truly, really mess things up, I look forward to welcoming you to the Australian Senate. 16:09 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I'm sure I can't even attempt to match Senator Dastyari's school and university pranks and liveliness, because I didn't know what a high school dropout was until I went to America and discovered that I was one! I'm in two minds even about standing up and saying anything today in this debate, because I don't want to give any credence to such a loopy One Nation policy as this one. But I will have a go at one area, and that is that Senator Hanson has said that people shouldn't be voting at 18, 19 or 20 because they don't pay taxes. Well, there are some of us here who have been paying taxes since we were 15, when we left school and started work. I suspect that there were teenagers working at Senator Hanson's fish-and-chip shop who probably paid taxes, unless she was paying them under the table. There are a lot of kids who pay taxes at the ages of 15, 16 and 17. Certainly, they should be allowed to vote at 18. I don't agree with the Greens and Senator Dastyari about lowering the age to 16; I think that it should stay at 18. I certainly don't believe in lifting it to 21, but at 18, as other senators have said, you can vote, you can drive and you can get married. If you commit crimes then you will be tried in an adult court. You can gamble and you can go to the pub—all those sorts of things. And also at 18 you can enlist in the military and die for your country. You should be allowed to have the right to vote at any time that an election is called. All I would say to Senator Hanson is that, when she says that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds shouldn't have the right to vote in this country, she should go to Gallipoli. Go there, as some of us have done on Anzac Day, and walk through the graveyards in Gallipoli. See those tombstones at the bottom of the cliff there and see the ages of some of those young men who died for us and for the right to vote. They were 19 and 20, and some of them probably even lied about their age and they may have been 17 or 18. So we should leave the voting age at 18 years. I think this is a loopy idea. 16:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak in response to the matter of public importance submitted by Senator Siewert, a parliamentary colleague from Western Australia. Senator Siewert would like the chamber to discuss the suggestion—the suggestion—that young Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 be blocked from participating in democracy by raising the voting age to 21. I'm very pleased to be standing here tackling the big issues facing Australia today. I've been particularly entertained by Senator Dastyari's demonstration of his consistent lack of interest in any intellectual development over his lifetime, a record that he continues in the Senate today! On this matter of public importance, we've heard some very sensible points raised by Senator Paterson, of course. But, as usual, we've heard some pretty serious nonsense—and headline-seeking nonsense at that—from those opposite and also from the Australian Greens. Wasn't it wonderful to see Senator Dastyari and Senator Hanson-Young on a unity ticket, providing the chamber with living proof of the very wise assertion of the poet Ogden Nash that you are only young once but you can stay immature indefinitely. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator HUME 266499 Did you like that? In considering Senator Siewert's highly-loaded question, I note for the chamber that the most significant and memorable postwar changes to the Australian electoral system were to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, which our parliament legislated in 1973. We weren't the first country to do this. After World War II this policy was one that was rapidly expanded, echoed and implemented across established democracies worldwide. Switzerland was the final major democracy to lower the voting age from 21 way back in 1991. The Turnbull coalition government strongly believes that a legal voting age of 18 remains the appropriate marker, as at this stage it is the age at which a person is considered an adult in Australia. I have nevertheless heard the numerous arguments for adjusting the current voting age. Those have pulled in both directions, and there are those, such as Senator Hanson, who argue that a legal voting age of 21 should be reinstated—that young Australians, and I am going to quote Senator Hanson here, 'Don't have any idea, they've never had a job and they have no understanding of politics.' This attempt by Senator Hanson to tar all 18- to 21-year-olds with the same brush, in my view, ignores the contributions that many young adults have made to our nation's development and prosperity over many years. A reversion of the voting age to 21 is nothing more than a form of social regression. Since as far as back as the Boer War, we have sent Australians under the age of 21 to fight for our country and indeed—as Senator Hinch mentioned—to die for our country. Hundreds of thousands of employed Australians are between the ages of 18 and 21. They pay taxes, and they employ others. Also, over 165,000 young Australians under the age of 21 undertake voluntary work in our community. These are people that deserve a say. Reinstating the voting age to 21 is contrary to parliamentary democracies worldwide and will only hurt Australia's young adults who have made an active choice to participate in our nation's future. They have earned that right through their vast contributions to our country. It would be absolutely ludicrous to take that right away. As far as Senator Hanson is concerned, I think we can look upon this as a cheap attempt to bar, potentially, what she may consider as an unfavourable slice of our population from electoral participation. True autonomy for most Australians is gained at the age of 18. We can marry at 18. We can drink at 18. We can gamble at 18. We may participate in a contract at 18. We may also appear in an adult court. The line must, however, be drawn somewhere, and common sense alone tells us that the age of 18 is an appropriate point for that line. Society has long accepted this to be true. Yet common sense is only one side of the story. Another often parroted argument by those who advocate a lower voting age is that by doing so we would encourage political participation among our younger citizens. If this were the case, if there were evidence of this claim, don't think that the Turnbull government would not be looking at it. The Turnbull government would weigh it up. It would consider its implications, and it would make a balanced decision that delivered the greatest overall benefit to our country. This approach is what our party stands for. But, unfortunately, evidence of this claim of potential increased participation does not exist. A previous ANU study looked into this very matter and found that allowing 16- to 17-year-olds the vote would not actually make young people more politically engaged or create a fairer democratic system. This result echoes the findings of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which, in its inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election, found that the voting age of 18 remains appropriate. Improving the accessibility of our political system and encouraging young people to get involved with politics are an essential issue for the Turnbull government. This is reflected through more than 16 million people now being enrolled to vote. This is the largest electoral roll since Federation. It includes over 900,000 enrolment transactions just recently processed, between 8 August and 24 August alone. I therefore advise Senator Hanson, the Australian Greens and Senator Dastyari to read somewhat deeper into the issue of the voting age before they utilise it as some sort of warped form of gerrymandering. The line must be drawn somewhere. If you take a reasoned and balanced view of the issue, one on which political pointscoring is not the primary focus, it is crystal clear that the current voting age is an appropriate and acceptable measure for our society. Finally, I should inform the chamber that in preparation for my response to this matter of public importance I tasked a young man in my office, Mr Nick Henderson, to research a few of the statistics that I have mentioned today. Over the past few weeks, Mr Henderson has been working as a voluntary intern in my office and is today having his first experience of the strange life we lead in Canberra. Mr Henderson is an economics student at Monash University, where he was a recipient of the Sir John Monash scholarship for excellence and equity. He has also worked part time as a pizza chef, as a barista and in retail. He has volunteered at World Vision, and he has taught English in Cambodia. With a family member with autism, Mr Henderson has taken a personal interest in the rolling out of the NDIS and, in particular, in the certainty of its funding. While Mr Henderson has never been involved in student politics and is not a member of any political party, Mr Henderson is an astute and politically aware young man. Three years ago, Mr Henderson was not Mr Henderson; he was Master Henderson, a schoolboy, and he had done none of these things. He has done all of them since he left school. He's done all of them since he turned 18. Mr Henderson is now 20 years old. Why would anyone want to deny a young man like Mr Henderson a chance to participate in the future of his country? Why, equally, would society bestow such a significant responsibility before Mr Henderson had the experience of any of the other responsibilities in life? This government will not be engaging with this debate, which is more about enhancing headlines than about enhancing democracy. It is more about better press than it is about better government. The Turnbull government is interested in making the lives of all Australians better, no matter what their age may be, by providing more opportunities, more jobs and a better future for all Australians. 16:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia All of us in this place should believe in strengthening our democracy, and Senator Hanson and One Nation's suggestion of raising the voting age is beyond ridiculous. Young people in Australia want to be involved in decision-making processes in the same way all other Australians do and should be offered the opportunity to do so on the same footing as other Australians within our existing mandate. Encouraging young people to participate encourages transparency and engagement in community-centred action to improve decision-making processes in our nation. We need to value and acknowledge the contribution of young Australians through our accountable processes here in this parliament. This means that we believe that young people deserve a say at the ballot box about the future of our nation. According to the most recent census, almost one million young Australians would lose their legal right to vote if the voting age was raised from 18 to 21. That's one million Australians who would be denied the right to vote. I know that Senator Hanson has contended that young people haven't had enough life experience or enough political experience or engagement yet, but the simple fact is that the very act of enrolling to vote—of coming on the roll and voting for the first time—is part of what triggers that engagement. I certainly remember, for my own part, when the Australian Electoral Commission doorknocked my home when I was 17, I was excited to be put on the electoral roll. During my very first vote the following year, I started to take an interest in political affairs, and more and more so until, indeed, I had joined a political party by the time I turned 21—I'd joined the great Australian Labor Party. What my simple experience demonstrates, like that of millions of other Australians, is you can't arbitrarily delay voting and expect that everyone will be ready after that. You've got to get people on the roll and get them engaged to trigger them to relate to what's being discussed on the TV and relate to the fact that there is an election on. It's not something that you can just turn on once you turn 21. The simple fact is there are many 16-year-olds today who have an interest and who are willing, ready and able to vote. I think that is, indeed, a worthwhile policy discussion. We should be having more young people engaged in our democracy, not fewer. Young people are active participants in our public life in this nation and active contributors to the taxation system. I had my first taxpaying job before I turned 18. In fact, by the time I had turned 18, I was on my second taxpaying job, having worked on the family orchard before that as a child and played a role within small business. Those under 18 in our nation currently have no voice on decisions government makes today that impact them in the future, and yet we know that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are mandated to engage in adult activities. You can apply from 16 years and six months of age to commence military service at 17. You can get your drivers licence between 16 years and six months and 17, or 18 in Victoria. You can get your pilots licence for balloons and gliders from 16 and for aircraft from 17. You can get your firearms licence from 14 years of age in some states and territories. Young people make independent decisions about medical matters from the age of 16 and can be treated as independent, in terms of leaving home under particular circumstances, from the age of 16. If people under the age of 21 can be sent to war, drive on our roads and live independently, why is it that they can't be trusted to participate in our democracy and have a say at the ballot box? I raised this issue in my first speech to the Western Australian parliament when I was elected there in 2001. I said very strongly that we should be examining lowering the voting age to 16. I said at the time that, as the majority of people at this age are at least as politically aware as other voters, they have their own articulate views and opinions to which members of parliament should be responsive and accountable. I still believe that this is the case. I can recall that, in the Shorten opposition's policies before the last election, it flagged the idea of expanding the electoral franchise so that more young people have the right to vote at future federal elections. We said that in government we would consider inviting young people to come onto the roll from 16, which you currently can do, and that, once you're on the roll, you would legally be able to exercise the right to vote. It means that we could maintain the very important principle of compulsory voting but give that time for young people when they're ready—and many of them are—to come onto the roll and start to exercise that political and civic engagement, which so many of them are ready to do. I meet young people every other day in this country, visiting schools, visiting different communities and visiting Girl Guides and Scouts who are very engaged in political discussion, very engaged in their local communities and very ready to vote on the issues before us in our society. We know this from the fact that we have seen more than 65,000 18- to 24-year-olds get on the electoral roll in the marriage postal survey. They are mad keen to have their say on this issue, and yet Senator Hanson would like to take that voice away from about a million young people. So I believe that young people are appalled at what Senator Hanson stands for in this regard, and I guess it's no surprise, really, that Senator Hanson wants to stop them from having their say. We in this place should be ensuring that young people have a say in our future. Young people should not be disenfranchised from politics. We should be encouraging their participation more than ever. When reflecting on the idea that we need to give young people a greater say, not a lesser say, I truly believe this extends to how we consult with children and young people more broadly in our society. For example, one of the organisations that government funds is the CREATE Foundation. The CREATE Foundation is a very critical organisation that represents the needs of young people in care. These are young people whose parental guardian is the state—who have no other legal parent. They have expressed strong views about how the policies and practices of government treat them in terms of their foster care, their family placements and the day-to-day management of their lives. So, as to the issues of the state, in terms of how we affect young people—be they in care or in education, be it as to their medical care or any aspect of their lives—their views are valid and need to be considered by this place and by every level of government. 16:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Let me put it on the record: this is not a One Nation policy; it's my personal opinion. So that's on the record, all right? You're all saying it is a One Nation policy. Just get it straight. I love the hypocrisy in this place! Absolute hypocrisy! You have Labor and the Greens saying, 'Everyone should have their vote'—and they want to lower it to 16 years of age. Well, who wanted to stop the plebiscite on marriage equality? Labor and the Greens. They didn't believe that Australians should actually be voting on it but that it should be up to the parliament. So look at the hypocrisy of it. They say that people should have the right to vote—but not when it comes to a marriage equality bill; no way in the wide world. They wanted to stop that because they know better than the average voter out there! Yes, the voting age was 21 until it was lowered in 1973 because of national conscription. I like the reference to Turkey and the grave sites. I'm not being disrespectful at all to those people, because my grandfather fought at Gallipoli. The whole fact is: the voting age at that time was 21. Yes, people went and fought for this country, but the times then were totally different because the youth finished school at around 13 years of age, if not younger. These days, the kids are still at school until 18 years of age and then they go straight on to university. The Greens say that the voting age should be lowered to 16, as have the Labor Party under Bill Shorten. In 2015 he suggested the voting age be lowered to 16. So he is in line with Senator Dastyari. Anyway, let's just look at this. There are a few countries around the world that do have a voting age of 21. The lowering of the voting age from 17 to 16 was rejected by Luxembourg, by 81 per cent of voters, in June 2016. They didn't want it lowered to that age. Eighty one per cent said no way in the world did they want to do it. And it was actually rejected here in Canberra as well. Senator Pratt talks about how many people got onto the voting roll: 65,000. Well, isn't that impressive? But the AEC found that, in 2013, in the federal election, 25 per cent of young people aged between 18 and 24 failed to enrol to vote. That's over 400,000 people. Studies show that young voters are not engaged or interested in the electoral process. How many times do we have kids voting—and I'm talking about those who are 18 plus—who have no idea who they're going to vote for or why they should vote for them and no idea of policies, and who ask their parents who they should be voting for? That is the case. I meet people on a regular basis that have no understanding—and I'm not talking about 18- to 21-year-olds; I'm talking about people of older generations who don't even understand the workings of parliament. You ask them the difference between local, state and federal, and they can't even tell you. Another thing is: this parliament and the political parties in this place have kept people in the dark and treated them like mushrooms when it comes to the preference system, because they don't want them to be informed of where their preferences go. So people are totally confused, not only about voting but even about where their preferences go. It suited the major political parties in this place to keep people in the dark. Senator Hanson-Young makes a comment that I'm fearmongering or just creating debate so people can have a say on this. I think there are more important things to talk about in this chamber than this because no private senators' bill has been put up by myself or the party to actually reduce the voting age. Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Hanson-Young, I will just say that Senator Hanson only has 18 seconds to go. She should be heard in peace. Senator HANSON BK6 Thank you. I would say to Senator Hanson-Young: is she terrified of me? No. I suggest she go and look at my Facebook page, Pauline Hanson's Please Explain. She will see over a thousand comments terrified of Senator Hanson-Young and saying why she shouldn't be in this place. (Time expired) 16:35 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria It is so good to know that the proposal to increase the voting age to 21 isn't One Nation policy; it's just Pauline Hanson's personal opinion—personal opinion that is completely out of touch, however, as are almost all of the rest of One Nation's policies when it comes to the interests of young people. This proposal to increase the voting age to 21 takes us back a very long time. The Australian voting age was reduced to 18 in 1973. That was 44 years ago. Attitudes and our whole way of life have changed so significantly since 1973. Of course, 1973 was the first year of the Whitlam government, after 23 years of conservative rule—conservative rule, I think, that Pauline Hanson's policies would have been more consistent with. In the US, it was the time of the Watergate scandal—that corrupt politician was that long ago. It was the year that the last episode of Laugh In was produced—a show which had that memorable line, 'Very interesting, but stupid', and I think that sums up Pauline Hanson's proposal to increase the voting age to 21. It's not surprising that Senator Hanson wants to discriminate against and disenfranchise a million young Australians. It's consistent with the intolerance and discrimination that One Nation shows every day in this parliament towards people that don't agree with them. It's absolutely right that young people do not support the hurtful, bigoted, simplistic, racist policies of One Nation. They are sick of being screwed over. They want people to be treated fairly and equitably. Young people want to have a fair go for all. In particular, people between the ages of 18 and 21—or even people between the ages of 16 and 18, who the Greens think should be able to vote—have a view of an Australia that is so different to the view of Australia that One Nation have. I'm not just making this up. There was a survey that was done by Youth Action and the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth shortly before the 2016 election. It surveyed 3,400 12- to 25-year-olds to ask them what was important for them and what policy outcomes they would like to see out of the 2016 election. Not surprisingly, it is a list of policy proposals that are light-years away from and absolutely diametrically opposed to the policy positions of One Nation. Young people that were surveyed wanted to see high-quality education. They wanted to see increasing funding to education, increasing access to education and more funding and more resources for local unis and TAFEs. One Nation's low-tax, small-government policies would decimate education. Young people wanted to see better access to health services, including better access to mental health and dental health, and that means giving our health services the resources to be able to fund these programs that are so essential for young people. Young people wanted urgent action on the environment and urgent action on global warming, unlike the troglodytes of One Nation, who even refuse to acknowledge that global warming is real and is based in science. These young people are way past that. They know that it's real and that it is their futures that are at stake. They don't want to see the Adani coalmine opened. They want to see action. They want to see us transition to 100 per cent renewable energy. They're the sorts of policies and actions that young people want, and these are the people that Pauline Hanson would disenfranchise. One person said, 'I will inherit this earth, then my children after me, their children after them, and so it continues. I don't want my kids to inherit a wasteland, or to have to ask what stars, rhinos and forests look like because some power-hungry politicians couldn't get their priorities straight. They need to stop playing the game.' Finally, the particular thing that young people said was a priority for them was social justice, with marriage equality right at the top of the agenda, as well as support for people seeking asylum and Aboriginal rights. One person was quoted as saying, 'I'm gay and trans and very rarely feel safe, and I hope that one day I will.' With the policies of the Greens, they will; with the policies of One Nation, that day would be a very long way away. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! The time for the discussion has expired. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security 65 Report 65 16:40 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report on the review of the relisting of Boko Haram and Islamic State under the Criminal Code and the report on the review of the declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports. Leave granted. Senator BUSHBY HLL I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I'm pleased to present the committee's reports on the relisting of Boko Haram and Islamic State as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code and the declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organisation under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Under the Criminal Code it is an offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, associate with, or conduct a range of activities in support of a listed terrorist organisation. The Criminal Code enables the committee to review all listings of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period. In conducting its review, the committee held a private hearing with ASIO and the Attorney-General's Department and carefully reviewed the listings with reference to both the procedures followed by the government and to the merits of the listings themselves. The committee was satisfied that appropriate processes had been followed and that Boko Haram and Islamic State, two of the most bloodthirsty terrorist organisations operating in the world today, continue to meet the relevant thresholds to be listed as terrorist organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of both organisations and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instruments. The PJCIS has a similar review power under the Citizenship Act that provides for dual citizens aged over 14 years to lose their Australian citizenship if they engage in certain conduct on behalf of a declared terrorist organisation. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's declaration of Jabhat al-Nusra in July 2017 was the second to have taken place under the provisions, with the first being Islamic State in May 2016. As part of its review of the declaration, the committee held a private hearing with ASIO, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The committee was satisfied that Jabhat al-Nusra, which is already a listed terrorist organisation, is opposed to Australia and Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties, so that, if a person were to fight for or be in the service of the organisation, the person would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. The committee therefore supports the declaration and finds no reason to disallow the legislative instrument. I commend the reports to the Senate. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Consideration 65 Community Affairs References Committee 65 Government Response to Report 65 16:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is item 48, the government's response to the Community Affairs References Committee report on the 'design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management'—and that's a joke—'of the Social Welfare System initiative'. The government's response is dated September 2017. What an insult this response is to the thousands of people affected by this debacle commonly known as robo-debt and particularly to the hundreds of submissions that the committee received and the dozens of people that we heard give the Senate inquiry their personal accounts when we held the hearings around Australia. They were very clear that this system had a profound impact on Australians on income support. The government's response is lacklustre, perfunctory, quite obviously didn't pay any attention to the evidence that we received and claims that there is a lack of evidence to justify the committee's recommendations. I will come to that evidence shortly. It says: There is no evidence to support the recommendation to put on hold the online system. I'll come back to that in a minute. It says: The Government agrees with the conclusions and recommendations in the Dissenting Report. Oh, my goodness! I'm shocked that the government supports the dissenting report written by its own senators! Of course it would support that dissenting report. But it also says: On this basis, the Government rejects the central conclusions and recommendations of the Chair's Report, especially the conclusion that the online system lacked procedural fairness. That is simply ridiculous if you read the committee's extensive report and particularly our conclusions around procedural fairness, where we outlined the complete lack of procedural fairness from go to whoa in the way the government implemented this process. The government also seeks in its response to imply that the recommendations were superfluous because of the Ombudsman's report, but, if you look at the Ombudsman's report—which of course we covered in our inquiry—it is quite obvious that the Ombudsman's report considered a lot of things other than what our inquiry investigated. The recommendations from the Ombudsman were limited to purported debt raised by the OCI and specifically did not comment on the policy rationale behind the OCI system, the government's broader debt raising, the recovery program or the use of external debt-collection agencies, all of which we considered. Look at what organisations commented on when they were commenting to the committee inquiry. They were supportive of the Ombudsman's reports. In fact, so was our inquiry report. But they clearly pointed out that the scope of their inquiry was limited to a few implementation matters and did not go far enough to address the fundamental flaws of the OCI system. But of course the government don't want to look at the fundamental flaws in the OCI system, because there are so many. They do not want to stop their revenue raising. They would rather try raising money from the most vulnerable members of our community than from the wealthier members of our community. They'd rather give tax breaks to the rich than actually be fair and have a fair social security system. There are many points, and I'm sure I'm going to run out of time—in fact, I'm just about to. If you look at the perfunctory way that the government deal with the recommendations from the committee, it's a complete slap in the face to those people that have had significant trauma and, in fact, have had significant mental health issues because of the way the government handled this. Some people have been mentally unwell because of the way the government has tried to raise debts from the most vulnerable. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Siewert, are you seeking leave to continue your remarks? Senator SIEWERT e5z I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 66 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017 66

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Explanatory Memorandum 66 16:50 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Membership 66 16:51 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 16:51 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Economics Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Future of Public Interest Journalism—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Red Tape—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Question agreed to. BILLS 67 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 67

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 67 Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017, Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017, Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017, Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017, Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment 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, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017, Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 67

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017

Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017

Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

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

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017

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

Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment 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

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

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017

Assent 67 COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 68 Report 68 16:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the protection of personal Medicare information, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McALLISTER 121628 by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 68 BILLS Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017, Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 68

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 68 16:53 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Income Tax Rates Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Untainting Tax) (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017, Nation-building Funds Repeal (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 69

Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Income Tax Rates Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Untainting Tax) (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Nation-building Funds Repeal (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 69 16:53 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and 10 related bills, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 69

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 69 16:53 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. BUSINESS 69 BUSINESS Rearrangement 69 16:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That government business order of the day no. 4, the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016, be postponed till a later hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 69 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 69

Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Second Reading 69 16:54 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to put remarks on the record with regard to the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. Our ADF members put their lives on hold to serve and protect our country and we owe them our unwavering support during and after their service. This bill comprises four schedules which seek to smooth processes, to increase protections for reservists, to realise a recommendation from the first principles review of Defence to add contemporary definitions of children in relation to members and to enable reclassification of those who leave Defence and later find they could have been medically discharged. With regard to schedule 1: the first schedule amends the Defence Act 1903 to enable a policy framework to broaden and expand conditions under which a positive test result for prohibited substances must be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage of over-the-counter medication or substances administered by authorised persons. Labor says this is a very practical amendment which will smooth processes in circumstances where individuals test positive for over-the-counter prescribed medicines. The second schedule amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001. It does so in order to ensure that all reservists would be eligible for the full range of protections under the act in respect of their employment and education. Reservists are a remarkable group of Australians; they certainly play an integral role in the defence of Australia, serving in an entirely voluntary capacity to provide support to the ADF to help rebuild lives and communities after floods, tsunamis and bushfires, as well as delivering very significant humanitarian support overseas. Labor acknowledges that our reservists are part of our broader defence capability. These changes in schedule 2 will improve the protections to our reservists and encourage greater retention and capability of that very valuable reserve force. Schedule 3 serves the purpose of transferring the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. This is a significant move, in that it is in accordance with the recommendation from the first principles review of Defence. Schedule 4 undertakes the task of aligning a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015 with other military superannuation schemes. It will provide clarity on the definition of an eligible child or an invalid. Labor is supportive of changes which improve processes and protections for members of the Defence Force, employees of the defence industry and also their families. By smoothing the processes around medications, increasing protections for reservists, adding contemporary definitions of children and enabling reclassifications of those who leave Defence, this bill seeks to improve conditions of each of those groups and, therefore, the Defence Force overall. Labor has always said that if there is more we can do to support our ADF personnel then we should be doing it. Labor believes that in supporting this bill we are providing a smoother process and increased protection for those men and women who serve our country. There is much more to do but these are certainly reasons that Labor finds it satisfactory to support this bill. Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. The bill comprises four schedules, which seek to apply a commonsense approach to Defence prohibitive substance testing, to expand and strengthen protections for reservists, to add contemporary definitions of children and to apply reclassifications for those who leave Defence. Finally, the bill includes measures to transfer certain functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. The first schedule of the bill amends the Defence Act 1903 to streamline the policy framework by broadening and expanding the conditions under which a positive test result must be disregarded due to circumstances relating to the appropriate usage of over-the-counter medication and substances administered or dispensed by authorised persons. This is a commonsense measure that is supported by the Nick Xenophon Team. Schedule 1 also repeals sections 101 and 104 of the Defence Act and substitutes a new proposed section 101 which simplifies the process leading to the termination of a defence member to align with the provision contained in the Defence Regulation 2016 and provides for procedural fairness during the termination decision-making process. A defence member retains redress of grievance provisions contained in the regulation, including the possible investigation by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Defence Force Ombudsman. Currently, defence members and defence civilians who test positive for a prohibited substance, even if they took a prescribed over-the-counter medication, are required to show cause as to why they should remain in service or why, in the case of defence civilians, they should not be terminated. However, if the same medication was administered, supplied or prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner, the act allows the result to be treated as if it were a negative. The proposed changes to schedule 1 of the bill establish a new policy with the effect that a defence civilian's test result will be treated as negative test result when a medication has been administered by medical officers and health professionals or obtained as an over-the-counter medication, as a pharmacy medicine, pharmacist-only medicine or a general sales medicine. In addition, items 3 and 4 of schedule 1 expand on the conduct of testing for prohibited substances to include an option of a chaperone if the person being tested makes such a request. The rationale for including this provision is to provide comfort and support for the person being tested. However, the proposed subsection 95(5) states: To avoid doubt, the test may be conducted even if the requested person is not present. The explanatory memorandum says testing may proceed in circumstances where the request is considered unreasonable or impractical. This seems to defeat the benefit of having the option of a chaperone or a support person present in the first place. That aside, the Nick Xenophon Team is supportive of the practical measures proposed in schedule 1 that would ensure defence members and defence civilians who test positive for taking over-the-counter and prescribed medications are not unfairly penalised as a consequence. Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to expand the protections for our reservists. The Nick Xenophon Team welcomes these measures, which have been a long time coming. The DRS(P) Act provides for protection of reservists in their employment and education to facilitate their return to civilian life after providing defence service and for related purposes. The amendments are described by Defence as being needed to mitigate some of the disadvantages reserve members face when active in defence service, because of absence from their workplace, their education provider and, in some cases, their country. The proposed measures will expand the scope of the financial liability and bankruptcy protections to apply to all operational service by reserve members. It will clarify the employment protections to give greater certainty about reserve members' rights when they are absent from employment to render defence service. It will also enhance the education protections to create an obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate reserve members' defence service. This schedule introduces anti-victimisation and anti-harassment provisions to improve the experience of reserve members in their civilian workplaces and also introduces a civil penalty regime as a complement to the existing criminal offences throughout the act. Our reservists undertake an incredible balancing act between their civilian work, their families and their reserve service. We agree with the minister when he says that no-one should be disadvantaged by choosing to wear a reserve uniform and we welcome the measures in this schedule to assist our reserve members in serving their country without concern about returning to their civilian working lives. The DRS(P) Act was reviewed in 2008, with the protection review concluding that, whilst the act was working well overall, it did make a number of recommendations of enhancements. The government tells us that the amendments in schedule 2 implement many of those recommendations, but, until recently, the protection review had not been made public, and the explanatory memorandum is silent as to the number of recommendations implemented. However, following consultations I had with the government, the department has now made the protection review public, with the department confirming the measures in schedule 2 are a complete response to those recommendations, along with other matters raised by defence reserves. I thank the government, in the interests of transparency and accountability, for publishing the protection review on the Defence website. It is clear that the number of reservists has been in decline over recent years. The Defence annual report for 2015-16 reported that 19,338 reserve members received pay for days served. The report showed that, while the number of service days increased from the previous year, the number of reservists undertaking paid service had in fact declined. Major General Paul Irving, National President of the Defence Reserves Association, said in the April 2016 issue of The Australian Reservist that the Defence Reserves Association has been extremely concerned by the rapidly declining numbers in the Australian Reserves. He went on to say: At the 2015 National Conference, we were advised that a detailed review of the Naval Reserves would be undertaken. The DRA has been critical of the state of the Standby Reserve in the three Services, particularly in the RAN. A recent review of the RAN … found that a number of members were deceased and contact details of around 90% of Standby Reservists were incorrect. The Defence Reserves Association received 'advice emanating from the 2015 National DRA Conference that the proposed amendments to the act were moving through the "system" and should be considered by parliament in early 2015'. This did not, of course, occur, and we are finally at that juncture, over two years later. While it took Defence 12 months to endorse the findings of the protection review, which were made in 2008, it is an indictment of both major political parties that, more than nine years later, these relatively non-controversial amendments, which received bipartisan support, are only now being considered by the parliament. These changes are supported by the Nick Xenophon Team and will improve the protections for reservists in many facets of their lives, with a view to encouraging greater retention and capability in the reserve forces. Schedule 3 of the bill will transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions of the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. Currently, the AGO's functions are limited to activities relating to geospatial and imagery intelligence. The proposed changes are in line with a recommendation from the 2015 first principles review of Defence, the focus of which was on minimising bureaucracy and maximising frontline services. The proposed changes will also permit the AGO to provide its non-intelligence products and related assistance to an expanded range of entities in accordance with Australia's legal obligations and national interests. The first principles review found: Geospatial information management is currently under-resourced, with poorly coordinated investment, limited leadership, obscure accountability, low management prioritisation and disaggregated thinking about strategy and direction. Current planned and future Australian Defence Force platforms and operations are all critically reliant on integrated geospatial data and services. The remediation of this key enabler is urgent. The Nick Xenophon Team does not dispute the need to provide a coordinated approach between the various Defence geospatial functions in order to deliver better service through the integration of the associated production and distribution systems and stronger professional linkages between the maritime, land and aerospace geospatial intelligence domains under the umbrella of the AGO. The Minister of Veterans' Affairs, in his second reading speech, said: The transfer of these functions is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation of imagery and other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial related information in support of Australia's defence interests and other national objectives. However, while the Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the proposed transfer of these functions to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, I raised concerns about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that the AGO is subjected to. On this issue, Defence has advised: The AGO is established under the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and is subject to both parliamentary and statutory oversight similar to other intelligence agencies. The advice continued: The Australian Hydrographic Office is outlined and will continue to be outlined in the Defence portfolio budget statements following the merger with the AGO with intended outputs to meet Defence's obligation for providing hydrographic services in accordance with the Navigation Act 2012. Defence will also continue to provide updates on the progress and achievement of published targets during Senate Estimates. Finally, the advice told me: On an annual basis, the AHO publishes HydroScheme, which provides more detail on these services and related activities. Both documents are available to maritime stakeholders and the public. On this basis, I am satisfied that the Senate and the parliament will retain sufficient oversight of the functions being transferred from the AHO to the AGO with the passage of this bill. I also raise concerns about the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation being a body exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This means that proposed paragraphs 6B(1)(e), (ea), (f) and (h), which together comprise the AGO's revised non-intelligence functions, will also become exempt from the FOI Act. However, in consultation with the department, I have been advised that Defence will not seek to rely on the exemption in relation to AGO's non-intelligence functions without strong justifications. Defence has undertaken to apply the provisions of the FOI Act as a matter of policy to requests for access to information concerning its non-intelligence functions, and I understand that the minister will confirm this during the summing-up of this bill. I thank the government and Defence for listening to and acting on the concerns of the Nick Xenophon Team. Finally, schedule 4 of the bill will align a small number of provisions in the Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015 with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity of definitions. This schedule will ensure that members who resign from the ADF and who later find that they could have been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to have their motive for discharge reassessed. The measure operates to allow individuals who were not discharged as medically unfit at the time of their discharge to apply to the CSC at a later time to consider if the grounds existed on which a person could have been medically discharged because of a physical or mental impairment that they had at the time of discharge. If the CSC is satisfied that such grounds exist then the CSC must, as soon as reasonably practical, determine the percentage of incapacity for civil employment at the time of discharge. It is entirely just and appropriate that people in this situation have the ability to have discharge circumstances reassessed. I welcome the measure and commend the government for doing so. The Nick Xenophon Team is supportive of these changes, especially as it will benefit those suffering from undiagnosed mental health conditions. I have personally dealt with constituents who left the Defence Force as a result of an unknown medical condition, whether it was a physical or mental illness. Many of the veterans I assisted while I worked as a constituent manager for Senator Xenophon experienced difficulties. Given what we know and continue to learn about the complexities of trauma and its manifestations, coupled with our growing understanding of mental illness, it is entirely reasonable that Defence members in this situation might leave the Defence Force without being entirely aware of any underlying health issues. For many, mental illness can go undiagnosed for a very long period of time. This measure is an important step in the healing of those persons affected. Schedule 4 will also provide for a more modern definition to allow a child of a deceased member or invalid to become eligible at a later date in circumstances where the child was found ineligible at the time of the member's or invalid's death. The government has provided the following example for this: when a child of the member is over 18 and ceases full-time study to care for the member or to undertake a gap year prior to the member's death, subsequently resuming full-time study after the member's death, while still under the age of 25. The measure amends the definition of 'eligible child' by removing the requirement that the person was wholly or substantially dependent on the invalid or member when they died. Instead, being wholly or substantially dependent on the invalid or member at the time of their death will only be one of the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a person is a child of the invalid or member. The Nick Xenophon Team continues to support changes which seek to better the lives of Defence Force members, veterans and their families. That is why we support this bill. 17:12 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales In providing a few remarks on the summing up for the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, I would like to thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill and to acknowledge the support shown across the chamber in the second reading debate. I want to speak briefly to the four separate measures that the bill identifies. The first of those is the amendment to the Defence Act 1903 to enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a positive test result for a prohibited substance must be disregarded, including the usage of over-the-counter medication. I note that concerns have been raised by some senators with regard to privacy issues. However, given this measure would allow Defence personnel to avoid more intrusive show-cause processes when they present a positive result for common treatments, such as cold and flu medicines, it is the government's view this will, in fact, ultimately, increase privacy for Defence personnel, not diminish it. The second measure amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to ensure all reservists would be eligible for the full range of protections under the act in respect of both their employment and education. The bill will also extend the financial liability and bankruptcy protections for reservists on continuous full-time service that is operational service. The bill will also introduce a new provision protecting reservists in the workplace from harassment or detriment, including victimisation relating to their status or service as a reservist. These measures are the completion of recommendations from a 2008 review of the protections provided to reservists—as senators have noted—and they are long overdue. I commend these to the Senate. The third measure amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001, the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997, to include the transfer of hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy to the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation in accordance with one of the recommendations from the first principles review of Defence. The hydrographic functions will continue to be subject to parliamentary and statutory oversights. Noting the concerns of some senators that the status quo of freedom of information in particular be maintained for hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions, Defence has provided an undertaking that it will not seek to rely on the exemption from the FOI Act that is provided by the Intelligence Services Act in relation to AGO's non-intelligence functions without strong justification. To that end, I can assure the Senate that Defence and AGO undertake to apply the provisions of the FOI Act as a matter of policy to requests for access to information concerning its non-intelligence functions. The fourth measure amends the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015 to align a small number of the provisions in the act with other military superannuation schemes and to provide clarity on the definition of 'eligible child of a member or invalid', as senators have noted. As mentioned, the bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence and other legislation. They will be significant to the operations of Defence, providing streamlining to practices and common sense to policy. They will be significant to members of the defence reserves, who will receive greater protection. They will also be significant to family members of the ADF, who will now benefit from the changes to superannuation. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 73 17:16 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 17:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 74

Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017

Second Reading 74 17:17 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. The Labor Party opposes this bill to establish another boondoggle, a pork barrel, by the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for agriculture. The purpose of this bill is to establish an organisation to do something the states and the Northern Territory are already doing. The RIC will administer farm business loans and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, administer grants of financial assistance to the states and the Northern Territory for water infrastructure projects and concessional loans from 1 July 2018. But the loans that have already been delivered by the state and Northern Territory governments will continue to be administered by the states and the Northern Territory. The government is claiming that establishing the RIC will put competition on the banks to provide better support to farmers doing it tough. But this is already happening by the delivery of concessional loans by the state and Northern Territory governments. The government is claiming that establishing the RIC is a logical step in meeting the government's commitment to agriculture, which, as set out in the landmark agricultural competition white paper, is in excess of $4 billion. This statement is exaggerated and gives the impression that the government has provided meaningful investments to agriculture. The bulk of the $4 billion is made up of concessional loans that farmers were not taking up. It is important to note what the government's failed white paper stated about its new drought concessional loans scheme: The Government recognises the need to provide in-drought business support that is also fiscally responsible. That is why we will implement a new drought concessional loans scheme with a loan fund of up to $250 million per year over the next 10 years starting in 2016-17. The new drought concessional loan scheme has been poorly taken up. This is because of the design of the program. The government failed to properly consult or to understand if their new drought loans would be attractive to drought affected farmers. They weren't. The RIC will face the same difficulties. Its role will be to provide loans to farm businesses subject to the applicant meeting certain criteria. The 'subject to the applicant meeting certain criteria' will be centred on the viability of the farm business. It is important to understand that the RIC—the so-called 'Barnaby's Bank'—will be the bank of last resort, but the farm business will need to be assessed as being viable. Whether a farm business is deemed or determined as being viable has been a major issue for the states when developing the guidelines for concessional loans, and this will continue under the RIC. Further, the concessional loans are only for a period of 10 years. Post the 10 years, the farm business will need their bank to agree to take them back on their books. The bill states that the RIC can consult with commercial lenders and other bodies representing loan applicants. It can determine the terms and conditions for the farm business loans in accordance with the strategies and policy determined by the board and take security of the loans. But the security will only be for 10 years, and the commercial lenders will have to agree to take back the farm business before the RIC will be able to take security of the loan. It is difficult to see how the commercial lenders will be satisfied by the government's proposal to broaden the loans to draw on constitutional authority that includes the Commonwealth's trade, commerce and external affairs powers. The government is claiming that the RIC loans will not be the same as those currently offered through the states. One could also draw the conclusion that the new loans are also no longer going to be fiscally responsible, as was stated in the government's failed ag white paper. The government has not undertaken any genuine consultation about the functions and responsibilities of the RIC. The government is establishing the RIC in Orange with no cost-benefit analysis about the ongoing costs. It has again chosen to establish the RIC in Orange using the same type of government policy order used to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale, in the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate. The GPO, the government policy order, used to give effect to the minister's APVMA pork-barrelling to his electorate of New England has been investigated by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee. It found that the GPO used to relocate the APVMA to Armidale is flawed and should be revoked. The committee also recommended that the finance minister should apply greater scrutiny to future requests for orders to be made under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, with specific focus on consideration being given to the following: the financial and governance implications on an agency from an order under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and a cost-benefit analysis. In the event that the cost-benefit analysis does not identify a net benefit from the proposed order, the finance minister should require the relevant minister to explain the grounds on which the order should be made. The Senate committee's report into relocation of APVMA also heard evidence provided by key scientific, industry and agricultural stakeholders about their real concerns about the loss of expert regulatory scientists, but their voices have been totally ignored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce. This shows the government either doesn't get it or doesn't care. The Deputy Prime Minister has continually declined to say what degree of declining agricultural productivity he would be prepared to accept in exchange for moving the agency to his northern New South Wales electorate. Apparently the RIC will be the panacea for the agricultural sector, with the Deputy Prime Minister claiming: The RIC will also help fast-track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure projects needed to stimulate investment, economic growth and increased agricultural productivity in rural and regional communities. This is a ridiculous statement, and anyone who believes this statement is living in the twilight zone. As stated earlier, Labor is opposed to the bill. Labor will put forward a number of amendments to strengthen the bill. In the House of Representatives the government acknowledged that their bill was lacking in scrutiny and put forward amendments to increase the size of the RIC board. The government and the Senate should further strengthen the bill by supporting Labor amendments. 17:24 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. I'd like to start with the bits of the proposed legislation that sound, on face value, to be what the Greens should be able to support. The primary function of the proposed Regional Investment Corporation is to administer business loans to farms and to finance water infrastructure projects. In and of themselves, these sound like two decent propositions. But, when you look closely and read the fine print of what's included in this legislation, it is clear that the bill isn't anything so simple. It's very clear that this bill shouldn't be supported—that it would be setting up, basically, another dodgy slush fund for the corporate mates of the government. With regard to loans to farmers, there's a long history of government lending to farmers, supporting them in times of financial distress, and, in some cases, providing an alternative to the predatory behaviour of the big banks. Most importantly, the government has the ability to step in in times of drought, which is an absolutely critical role in an age where we can see droughts becoming more prevalent and harsh and affecting more of the country. Given the impacts of climate change, with global warming affecting our country, and given the lack of action by this government on addressing global warming, it is to be expected that, very sadly, we will continue to see more extreme and more frequent droughts. So, with the power to administer business loans, the Regional Investment Corporation looks, at first glance, to be set up to facilitate these loans to farmers in a timely manner. However, first glances can be very deceiving, and I'll come to these deceptions later. It is clear that, with regard to lending by banks, there is a political appetite for reform. The 2016 inquiry into the failure of loans provided by banks uncovered yet more dubious conduct by the banks, including banks not providing property evaluation documents to farmers, and banks charging unreasonable fees for compulsory property valuations, re-evaluating farms to engineer mortgage defaults and using single organisations that are known to undervalue properties. The Greens agree with both the government and the Australian National Audit Office that there have been problems with the existing arrangements for the government's concessional loans programs and that farmers haven't been able to access the loans as easily as would be preferred. We also acknowledge the submission of the National Farmers' Federation during the committee inquiry into this proposed bill, which was supportive of the bill, stating that there is hope in the farming community that the lag between political announcements about farm business loan programs and the actual delivery will be significantly shortened. Thus, during tough seasons, a streamlined and centrally-administered farm business loan program could prove vital to farmers across the nation. However, the bill being proposed by the government is far from the solution. On the one hand, yes, we've got a problem. But it's a very different question as to whether the proposed solution is the best thing to meet that problem. The answer to this egregious, predatory behaviour by the banks is not to give unfettered power to a minister without parliamentary or even cabinet oversight. The Greens are concerned that, in setting up this Regional Investment Corporation as proposed, the minister has complete discretion as to the creation of the operating mandate and the classes of loans that the Regional Investment Corporation will supply to farm businesses. And there is very little in the legislation to guide or to limit these decisions. We are also seriously concerned about the ability of the Regional Investment Corporation, through a disallowable instrument, to create totally new classes of loans, not currently contained within the legislation. This is a radically new and dangerous idea—that the minister responsible for a government corporation should have such a wide-ranging ability to change its operational objectives, the very objectives of the corporation, with very limited parliamentary or cabinet oversight. It is putting far too much power in the hands of one minister. A second function of the Regional Investment Corporation is to administer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, financial assistance for water infrastructure projects that are granted to the states and territories prior to the enactment of the Regional Investment Corporation Act. Alarmingly, this bill would also allow the minister to have the power to direct the board to fund specific water infrastructure projects without any requirement for a cost-benefit analysis, without any environmental impact statement and without any conflict-of-interest considerations for the minister. This is an obscenely unaccountable way to do infrastructure development, and it would put both the financial solvency of the Regional Investment Corporation and the health of our waterways seriously at risk. We have already seen, as we have evidence of it from this government, what happens when too much power is held by a few select ministers when it comes to the water of the Murray-Darling. In the light of this, we would be going completely in the wrong direction if we were to give a partisan person like Minister Joyce further power to administer something as critical as water infrastructure and to direct investment in water infrastructure. He is a minister who has seemingly been incapable of tackling issues such as the proven water theft from the Murray-Darling Basin. We also understand that the bill would allow the minister to propose the preferred location for the corporation. Minister Joyce stated in May that he intends to locate the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange, which is, of course, bang in the middle of the seat that the New South Wales Nationals lost to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party at the 2016 by-election. We believe that this, in itself, is an indication of how the minister intends to use this corporation—as a facility to pork-barrel resources to the electorates that suit the political objectives of the Nationals rather than the policy needs of farmers. We cannot support this, and any parliament or government that is concerned about having an objective assessment of such critical decisions, including where a corporation should be situated, should not support the minister having the unfettered ability to direct where the location of the corporation is going to be. But this is par for the course. We've already seen Minister Joyce, in the case of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, disregarding a negative cost-benefit analysis and deciding to go ahead and shift the APVMA to Armidale, in his electorate. He has shown how comfortable he is with pork-barrelling, moving an entire agency into his own seat to shore up support in that seat. We have seen what the result of that has been. We have seen the decay in the institutional capacity of the APVMA. There has been an absolutely dreadful decline in the approval of new pesticides, animal medicines and other agricultural chemicals. That's what happens when you give such unfettered power to a minister—the minister has the power to make decisions that aren't in the national interest; they are in the political interest of that minister. Giving further unfettered power to any minister, let alone the current minister, will essentially allow him to direct financial spending wherever he thinks it's most needed and to serve his political agenda rather than the needs of farmers doing it tough. Not only that; given that the operating mandate is not disallowable, relevant ministers will be able to change the corporation's direction without parliamentary agreement. That's not democratic; that's not transparent. That is giving ministers a mandate to do backroom deals that serve their political agendas at the expense of farmers who need help. But, 'Oh well, sorry. You don't live in an area that is going to serve a minister's politically expedient needs.' The Australia Institute has rightly expressed its concern about the explicit power that the bill provides to the responsible ministers over the recipients and the terms of the loans. Very substantial aspects of the corporation's lending activities would be at ministerial discretion. This creates serious risks of politically directed spending without rigorous oversight or analysis. Of course, this is familiar too. This is exactly the criticism—quite justified and serious criticism—of the government's proposed Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The government has form in setting up these financial institutions to fund projects that are going to serve their political interests and serve the interests of their corporate mates. We see it across the board from this government. They create unaccountable entities which are stacked with ex-lobbyists and industry interests and they avoid any trace of transparency and accountability. We expect that the government, in their contribution to this debate, will raise the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as a reference point. Because, yes, the CEFC creates its investment mandate by legislative instrument. But it's really important to note that the CEFC has much clearer parameters in its policy objective, on the classes of investments that it's eligible to fund and, unlike this proposed Regional Investment Corporation, there is absolutely no ability for the minister to direct resources to a specific project. As written, the Regional Investment Corporation would be legislated almost entirely by non-disallowable delegated instruments. Finally, the Greens are still unclear on exactly what policy objective the minister is trying to meet with the creation of this corporation. We would welcome further measures to streamline the existing farm business concessional loans programs. There is a problem there and it does need to be solved, but the powers of this proposed Regional Investment Corporation are far too wide ranging and much too compromised by the heavy touch of the minister for us to be able to support this bill. So, given all of these programs, the Greens will not be supporting this bill and we'll be encouraging the government to return to the drafting table to create something that will actually help our farmers who are doing it tough, rather than the political objectives of the government. 15:30 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales The Greens and Labor are opposing this bill. What a surprise! Senator Rice said that we've got to act on climate change. It's amazing that when Senator Macdonald asked Dr Alan Finkel, 'If we stop all our emissions in Australia, at a huge cost and a huge sacrifice for business, what difference will we make to the world?' The answer was: virtually nothing. So we go down this road that Australia's going to change the world with our CO2 emissions—no, we're not. We're going to have virtually no effect whatsoever. Senator Rice 155410 Talk to your farmers. Senator WILLIAMS I0V I talk to our farmers every week, Senator Rice. I talk to farmers a lot more that you do; I can assure you. You're the people who want to ban live exports; let's take away the income of the farmers. Look what happened under Senator Ludwig, the then minister, and Prime Minister Gillard when they banned live exports. What effect did that have on the beef industry? It was a devastating effect. That's why they need to be able to access cheap loans, and that's what this is about. When you get into government, you destroy the viability of the beef industry. That's something you should be totally ashamed of. Then you wonder why you have to have some sort of loan structure to keep these people on their properties, feeding Australians and feeding millions of people around the world. The Regional Investment Corporation is a good plan. It will administer the $2 billion farm business loans program, and the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. We know the Greens will oppose any dams, because there might be a frog habitat there. To say that a minister with the stroke of a pen can say, 'This is where we're going to build a dam' is absolute rubbish. You have state EPAs. Environmental protection plans must be put in place. There is the whole green tape. You just can't say, 'We're going to build a dam there tomorrow.' You know it doesn't work like that, Senator Rice. That's just crazy to say that here in the Senate. The Regional Investment Corporation will be governed by an independent board and a CEO with relevant commercial experience to effectively manage public funds, and it will be fully funded from the interest payments on Commonwealth loan schemes. The board will comprise a chair and two members. Members will appointed based on their appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in a range of fields, including agribusiness; banking and finance; water infrastructure planning and financing; rural industries and regional communities; economics; financial accounting and auditing; government funding programs; and law. It will be located in Orange and will be fully operational by July next year. What a good thing it will be to have it in Orange, in the central west of New South Wales, close to most of the western area. The National Party's Ian Armstrong, as agriculture minister, shifted the New South Wales department of agriculture from Sydney to Orange. Why would have you 400 people working in Sydney in the department of agriculture? You should move it out to an agricultural area. Since then, the city of Orange has never looked back. No longer will the Commonwealth have to barter with the state government to process drought and dairy concessional loans to help farmers. This will be a one-stop shop. With the Regional Investment Corporation, the Australian government will be able to deliver the support to farmers in need and cut out the middleman. The government has a 10-year commitment to farm business concessional loans. It offers access to the time limited farm household allowance during periods of financial hardship, and an increased deposit cap of $800,000 for the Farm Management Deposits scheme—and I'll come back to that later. Since 2013, $764 million in farm concessional loans have been approved for over 1,400 farm businesses. Not only that, because the interest rate is very low on these loans, the government has kept the banks honest and provided some good, honest competition in offering cheaper loans to farmers. Offering loans through the states lacks consistency because the government has to negotiate separately with each state government to change an existing arrangement or roll out a new program to farmers. The loans offered through the Regional Investment Corporation will boost productivity and cash flow and provide lasting benefits for rural and regional Australia, something those opposite simply do not care about. Water and water infrastructure are vital for the regions. I look at dams up my way, like Pindari dam, just east of Ashford, and Copeton dam, not far from Inverell, which were built for irrigation and farmers downstream. The gross value of farm production is estimated by ABARES to have reached a record $62.8 billion in 2016-17. And what's more, it's sustainable. It's not like mining where you take the resource out of the ground, clean it back up and put it back to agricultural land. Agriculture goes on forever. Agriculture is now the largest contributor to GDP growth and is a fast-growing economic sector. It contributes 0.5 percentage points to the national total of 1.9 per cent growth. It grew the fastest of the all the 19 industries in 2016-17, increasing by 23 per cent. That's how good agriculture is going. Agriculture contributed over $50 billion in exports last financial year, just under 14 per cent of our total goods and services exports. That's an increase of $9 billion from the five years previous. This government, and in particular Minister Joyce and former Minister Robb, worked hard to develop markets overseas to give our producers new avenues to sell their produce. Free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea are working well. We can see the benefits now flowing into rural areas, like the record wool prices. Why? We used to have 180 million sheep in the late eighties and early nineties. We have now gone from 180 million sheep back to about 70 million sheep. We have picked up the markets for our beef, and the beef price is showing that, likewise with our mutton and lamb. Take the wine industry, for another example. Australian wine exports are forecast to top 800 megalitres with a value of more than $2.5 billion in 2017-18, with strong demand in China and the United States. Australian wine producers have enjoyed excellent outcomes under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, with exports to China increasing from $364 million in 2015 to $516 million in 2016. I make a point about Landcare here. Landcare is a real winner. This government has invested more than $1 billion for phase 2 of the National Landcare Program, which is being delivered from July this year to July 2023. One of its key outcomes is funding for the establishment of the $20 million Centre for Invasive Species Solutions to drive research, development and extension activities to protect native ecosystems and habitats from pest animals and weeds. With regard to rural financial counselling, in May this year Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources Barnaby Joyce announced an additional $1.6 million for the Rural Financial Counselling Service. This is a free service that will assist farmers by giving them free access to professionals to work through their financial situation and build financial self-sufficiency. As I said, it'll be set up in Orange. Orange, which is already the home of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, will be the home of the Regional Investment Corporation. It is a good choice. In 2014-15 the gross value of agricultural production in the New South Wales Central West region alone was $1.7 billion, 14 per cent of the total gross value of agricultural production in New South Wales of $12.1 billion. The move to Orange continues the decentralisation focus of the Nationals in government. The APVMA is established in Armidale, in the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales, near where I live. It was reported in The Armidale Express on 27 September that more than 450 applications have been received for APVMA positions. Dr Chris Parker said that around 100 to 150 people will be based in Armidale once the agency's move from Canberra is complete in July 2019. Dr Parker said: With the strength of having one of Australia's premier agricultural universities here, having the CSIRO service station here, having a number of farms and trial sites here that companies are already using … I think anything is possible in the future. I agree with you, Dr Chris Parker. Of course, Labor oppose the move, but they're no friends of the regions. Their history is all there for everyone to see. That's why they're so despised in the regional areas. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill, and I will quote from part of its report: The committee recognises that the establishment of the RIC, underpinned by a streamline nationally consistent concessional loans scheme, would assist struggling rural communities to build the resilience, capabilities and financial viability required to sustain profitable farming and withstand the effects of natural disasters, market failures and inadequate commercial arrangements. We have strengthened the farm management deposits scheme, doubling the deposit cap from $400,000 to $800,000, restoring the ability of farmers to withdraw without penalty within the first 12 months in the case of drought. We have introduced the ability for financial institutions to offer FMDs as offset accounts for the home loans. At the end of June we had record farm management deposit holdings of $6.09 billion. This is an increase of $1.03 billion, 20.26 per cent, from 30 June 2016. This investment reflects our efforts to make FMDs more attractive to farmers. The coalition government has restored the ability of farmers to return to income tax averaging, also a benefit to them. We need a rural investment bank, if you want to call it that. If you think you can go on without building more dams, you have it very wrong. One of the essential items for human survival is water. In this land, we know it is life. Dorothea Mackellar wrote of the land of 'drought and flooding rains'. We need to harvest more water in times of floods and see that it's there for the tough, dry times ahead. Irrigation is essential for consistent watering of the crops, more yield, more production, more exports and more money in the regions. I don't know why people in this place oppose that. Why have you got such a set on the regions? A one-stop shop avoiding so much of the red tape, rules and regulations from the states is where farmers in tough times can seek a cheap loan to keep them going. We need finance to build dams. Minister Joyce has made it quite clear: the coalition make no apology that we are determined to build dams. Of course, hydro schemes follow dams. Perhaps the Greens might support that. They're very proud of their hydro schemes in Tasmania. Well, you've got to have dams to do it, so why are you so against building dams? We must store water, we must harvest water and we must manage it correctly to see that the whole nation benefits. I recommend the bill to the chamber. 17:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to make a fairly short contribution to the debate on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. Labor will be opposing this bill. I'm very happy to speak against the bill as it currently stands. I listened to most of what Senator Williams had to say, and I've got no doubt that he and many of his National Party colleagues are very sincere in their support for regional Australia, but I have to say that this bill and the entity that it proposes to create are, unfortunately, just another white elephant that we see from this government when it comes to providing for regional Australia. Day in and day out, we hear—particularly from representatives of the National Party but also from the Liberals—that they are the friends and supporters of regional Australia. What they don't want to tell you is that, for decades now, they have consistently failed to deliver prosperity and growth to their supporters in regional Australia. To this day, nine out of 10 of the poorest electorates in this country are represented by the National Party. If the National Party were serious about delivering to the bush and delivering to the regions, do you think that they would accept that as the outcome for the people that they represent? It is hardly something to be proud of that, after decades of service to electorates in regional and rural Australia, they are still condemned to some of the highest rates of poverty in this country. That is failure. That is not success. Unfortunately, this is just another example of the false hope that is held out to regional Australia by the National Party. It is not even the first example that we've seen from this government in this term of government alone. Over many months now, the Labor Party has pursued this government over the gross failure of its Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. This was held up by the government about two years ago, when it was announced—it was going to be the saviour of northern Australia. It was going to create jobs and wealth and prosperity right across northern Australia. To this day, it has not funded a single project and it has not created a single job. We know for a fact that the only money that has been spent, to this day, relating to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is about $2½ million to pay the fees of its directors, travel for its directors, functions for its directors and its stakeholders, and salaries for its highly paid senior executives. Not one thing has come out of that fund for people in northern Australia, who are desperately crying out for jobs. Labor, more than any party, is the party of jobs. It doesn't matter to us where you live. It doesn't matter whether you live in Western Sydney, in northern Melbourne, in central Brisbane or out west or up north in Queensland. We are the party of jobs. We want to get behind initiatives that offer real prospects to regional Australians and real jobs that will last into the future. That's why you will never find a Labor senator or a Labor member of this parliament who has criticised the concept of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. But you will find many of us who have been highly critical of the implementation of it and the way it has delivered—or failed to deliver—to a point where most Labor members of parliament and many people in regional Australia have now rebadged it the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. It is $5 billion of taxpayers' money, which is supposed to be out there right now creating jobs in northern Australia—North Queensland, the Northern Territory and the northern part of Western Australia. These are areas that desperately need jobs. They were given hope by this government through the creation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but, to this day, nothing has come from it other than largesse for directors and senior executives. That is one of the key reasons Labor is opposing this bill. We all know that this Regional Investment Corporation was only coined after the disastrous Orange by-election result in New South Wales, where the National Party copped an absolute hammering. It's no surprise that the head office of this corporation is proposed to be in Orange, because this is what the National Party do: every time they get into trouble they offer a little bit of pork here and there to their trouble spots and then neglect them for the next three years. As Bill Shorten, our Leader of the Opposition, said at the national Country Labor forum in Rockhampton only a week or so ago, the National Party are the party of 'pork and poverty'. Every time there is an election or some little political problem somewhere in regional Australia, they'll dole out a little bit of pork—a bridge here, a road there, a new white elephant, a new government structure created offering apparently thousands of jobs—but it never materialises, they walk away from it, and people in the electorate are left condemned to poverty, as they have been for decade upon decade with the National Party. This Regional Investment Corporation is just more false hope from this government. It's the latest white elephant being put up by this government to disguise its lack of success in delivering for regional Australia. If this government had been able to manage one project through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, if they had been able to deliver one job out of that fund, then we might have taken this proposal seriously. But we know that all this is is another structure that is being created to disguise the lack of success this government has when it comes to regional Australia. This government is always saying it stands for regional Australia and for jobs in agriculture. Well, in Central Queensland, an area that I have come to know very well with my responsibilities as a senator, this government is so in favour of the cattle industry and agriculture that it wanted to go out and compulsorily acquire prime agricultural land to expand a Defence base—without telling anyone about it. They went out during the election—in typical National Party style, with lots of pork—and talked about how they had signed a deal with the Singaporean government to expand the Shoalwater Bay Defence base. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; it actually does offer some opportunity to Central Queensland. But what they didn't tell people before the election was it would only be able to go ahead if they could compulsorily acquire prime agricultural land that services tens of thousands of cattle. It is no surprise that Rockhampton is known as the beef capital of Australia; it's because it has so much high-quality agricultural land near it and has thousands of people employed in the meat processing industry. This project from the government was going to go ahead until it was blocked by the actions of Labor and many powerful and loud voices in the community. It was going to take tens of thousands of head of cattle out of the supply chain, meaning a massive loss of income for rural producers; and thousands of jobs in meat processing were going to be jeopardised as well. That's how much a friend of the bush this National Party government is in regional Queensland. And they consistently turn a blind eye to the abuses of mining companies that replace their permanent work force with labour hire, casual positions and contract positions. Even in question time today we had Minister Cash give another spray against the CFMEU. But you never hear one word from anyone in this government taking on the mining companies about the hundreds of thousands of permanent workers they continue to put off the job on the very same day they bring in people on insecure labour hire arrangements. Let's not have any more rubbish from this government about how they're the friends of regional Australia and that this Regional Investment Corporation will deliver prosperity to the bush. It's nothing more than false hope; it's nothing more than 'pork followed by poverty', for which the National Party has become famous. If the government were serious about developing regional Australia and providing jobs to keep our regional communities strong, they would get projects out the door from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. They would get some of the beef roads funded that they announced at the same time, which are still waiting to be built. They would get the Northern Australia roads program up and running—and spending money like they promised to do two years ago but have failed to do. At last year's election they committed to jobs growth funds in all the different regions of Queensland. There was going to be a Bowen Basin jobs fund. There was going to be one up around Cairns and in other parts of regional Queensland as well. But they have been flat out even getting a steering committee appointed to start talking about proposals for what jobs might be created in regional Australia. They can't deliver on the promises they have already made. But here we are listening to them bang on about another white elephant that will sit out in Orange probably do nothing. Labor is serious about getting behind regional Australia and wants to see jobs created in regional Australia. But all this government can do is construct white elephants that disappoint people. Why not get projects out the door from structures that have already been created rather than creating a new one? Why not take up Labor's lead and put some money into the tourism industry, which we know creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in regional Australia? Why not get the NBN working properly, which is what so many regional businesses are tearing their hair out about to this day? I was in Rockhampton last week, meeting with regional businesses who are suffering greatly from the shoddy rollout of this government's NBN. Fixing those kinds of things may be a better way to deliver jobs rather than ramming new bills in to create mythical corporations that will sit on the shelves and do nothing at all, just like the northern Australia fund. It's time this government became serious about delivering to regional Australia. It is time to stop ramming bills through parliament that try to create structures that actually never deliver. Let's get the ones that have been created already working before we start wasting more time on new corporations that are just to satisfy a headline for Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister. Let's get jobs into regional Australia by doing things that will work rather than create new structures that will fail. 18:00 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales This bill, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, establishes a regional investment corporation to provide and administer up to $4 billion in concessional loans under a farm business loan program and water infrastructure loan program and to provide loans to the states and territories for infrastructure projects. The bill empowers the relevant minister to issue an operating mandate and regulations for the corporation, including to make directions regarding specific water infrastructure projects and classes of farm owners. The minister wouldn't be able to make directions regarding specific farm loans. The Liberal Democrats oppose this bill because its main purpose is the establishment of another government bank, this time to consolidate the provision of loans to struggling farmers. We would all be better off without government banks. Without government banks, taxpayers would not have to pay the administration costs of government banks and would not have to fund loans that generate less of a return and have a higher risk of default. And, without government banks, Australian businesses and workers wouldn't be diverted from the task of pursuing strong business prospects that a commercial bank would be willing to underwrite. This would help boost profits and wages. This is of particular relevance to agriculture. Agriculture is one of Australia's finest industries, but it could be even better if the bleating no-hopers in it were allowed to go broke. Good Australian farmers know who the bleaters are. They are the ones who remember one year of green pastures back when John Farnham was topping the charts and consider every year since to be drought rather than normal. They are the ones who hold out their hands for drought relief every decade or so. They are the ones who think they have a God-given right to be always paid the best prices they've ever received for their produce with a government guarantee, and they are the ones who think you've insulted their mother if you suggest their individual survival is neither critical to the economy nor critical to our food security. The bleaters in Australian agriculture are the ones who complain to The Nationals about everything but their own incompetence. And The Nationals respond by providing handouts, concessional loans and government interference in commercial negotiations to keep the bleaters on the land. If the bleaters were left to themselves, they would ultimately have no option but to change their ways or sell up, which would allow neighbouring farmers to expand and apply their more entrepreneurial, innovative spirit to the new acreage. Australian agriculture would benefit. Where Australian agriculture goes, so goes the nation. I love Australian agriculture, and that is why I condemn this bill. 18:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. As I make a contribution, I think I should reflect on some of the contributions by Senator Leyonhjelm, to come to the defence of the 'bleaters', if that's the term. We've had fairly unique circumstances around agricultural conditions both in my home state of Queensland, where some 93 per cent of the landmass is devoted to agricultural production, and in large tracts of the western part of New South Wales and the northern parts of South Australia, due to weather conditions. Of course, the struggles and the challenges in the dairy industry, for example in Victoria and Tasmania, are well known in this place. I don't agree with Senator Leyonhjelm that these people—and there are tens of thousands of them—have engineered their own circumstances, as opposed to having been subject to the insidious encroachment of periods of drought, some of which are now the longest in recorded history. In fact, 78 per cent of my home state remains droughted at the moment, and most of this is impacting on broadacre beef production, on pastoralists. So we have the dingoes, the kangaroos and the drought, and we have the suspension of the live cattle trade in 2011—and I know that some listening will roll their eyes and wonder when we're going to put that chestnut to bed. Well, the fact is that it affected tens of thousands of very viable generational producers in my home state, particularly in the northern areas of Queensland and into the Northern Territory. Those who are not students of the world of agriculture, particularly broadacre pastoralism, wouldn't remember that the live cattle trade suspension impacted for two to three years on the balance sheets of producers. We had massive numbers of cattle that had been particularly bred for export but then, because of the suspension of live exports, found their way onto the domestic market, competing with cattle produced for domestic purposes, which put downward pressure on the price that pastoralists could get for their product. I remember—and I have cited it in this place before—standing beside a neighbour who got 58c a kilogram for store heifers; if that neighbour went back into the marketplace today to replace their female seed stock, they would pay well above $3 at certain times. So I've always been fascinated by this attitude, as expressed by Senator Leyonhjelm, that farmers are whingers and that all they want to do is to reach out to the federal government to support them. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are very proud people who find themselves in difficult circumstances beyond their control. If we have a cyclone go through Fiji, 20 minutes later we will have a Hercules flying over, dumping out millions worth of aid and support. If we have a cyclone go through our coastal areas, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars, as a federal government, subsidising the re-establishment of those communities and the businesses that support those communities and support employment—hundreds of millions of dollars. And we do so without pause; we mobilise immediately to provide them with support the following day. There have been some great bushfire tragedies in this country, in South Australia and Victoria in particular. Massive bushfires have wiped out entire regions and districts and taken away people's livelihoods and homes. And, in those cases of natural disaster, we, as a generous nation, immediately mobilise to support these people. But, because we're dealing with a more insidious, slow and creeping form of natural disaster in the form of drought, somehow these people become whingeing 'bleaters', when nothing could be further from the truth. I can name for you hundreds upon hundreds of pastoralists in the beef industry in my home state—I can tell you the names of their parents and in some instances their grandparents—who have been on properties for up to 100 years, dealing with all the elements and with the challenges that exist when producing beef, in this case, in otherwise arid conditions. They are the best in the world at this. Sometimes remarks about these pastoralists show a great deal of ignorance on the part of the people who express them. Sixty-six per cent of the production of beef in the entire country happens in my home state of Queensland and, of that, over 70 per cent—some 72 per cent—is exported. We are a trade-exposed nation. We are not a volume exporter of beef. We can't compete with the Brazils, Argentinas and others, and so we have to produce quality product if we are to get our share of the marketplace. You can't produce a quality product unless the producers—these farmers, these 'bleaters' that Senator Leyonhjelm referred to—apply the very best practices they can to the operation of their properties, to everything that is within their control. Those of us who have been around these industries—for the last three or four decades in my case—have watched these people adopt technologies. I've watched them improve their properties, living hand to mouth, effectively, while they reinvest in the properties to create the best pastoral arrangements, to bring into play the best genetics that exist, so that their production rates go up. My grandfather and great-grandfather would produce bullocks—aged male beasts which might be five or six years of age before they were sold off the properties. In place of that we produce and sell an article—a fattened steer or a steer in forward condition—each year. Over the last 30 years, these pastoralists have improved production levels to such an extent that the volumes they produce per hectare on their properties as a result of some of the changes I've mentioned and others—better water reticulation; better water management; the capping of bores with literally millions of kilometres of poly pipe to introduce water points at particular intervals, which science has told us will attract cattle walking a particular distance each day—maximise the grazing of these properties. We're a country that doesn't subsidise the production of beef as happens in many of the nations that we compete with. I reject absolutely any sort of blanket assumption that a large number of the people in this industry or these industries are bleaters, that they're not efficient, that they're not amongst the most efficient producers in the world. Like everything, there are some who don't do it as well as they could or as well as they should. There are some who, from a financial point of view, have found themselves, starting from a very difficult base, not having or ever achieving the economic capacity to grow their property and improve their business to a standard that would improve productivity and would mean they could operate in a more self-sufficient manner. But the largest volume of them are very, very efficient operators. I can tell you this as a word of warning: if we create an environment where we start to get mass consolidation of properties and lose what's known as the family farm or the living property—that is, a property that's probably operated by mum and dad with one or two adult children, or certainly the support of their children as they grow up if they happen to remain in the district for their schooling—we're going to change the face of agriculture in our more regional, rural and remote areas to a point that is not in the national interest. We've seen this happen with corporatisation. I am not against corporatisation; I think there's a place for it. Foreign ownership and corporatisation have changed the face of rural Australia by the way that they behave in their interaction with these lifeblood communities, which are out there to support these pastoralists, who, in turn, support our economy. Agriculture's one of the second pillars in our economy. It's been number one before and it will be number one again—without it nothing else matters. You can turn your iPad on, but without agriculture you'll have nothing to eat, no shirt to put on, no trousers to pull on and no shoes or socks to put on. They are things that are produced by these farmers in agriculture. Unless we support them in much the same way that we do with so many other sectors when there are natural disasters, then, I say to you: we will pay a price in the fullness of time—we're already paying a price. The Regional Investment Corporation, from a legislative point of view, is simply a consolidation of what has been going on for decades with federal government support to agriculture. Currently, where you are drought affected, you are entitled to certain support from the federal government through concessional loans, and there are other measures that the government implements from time to time to support these people to put bread on the table while they survive these drier conditions. At the moment, these loans are administered by the states. One of the driving forces behind this was that we've found—certainly in the near term, in the last four or five years—that some of the states have not administered these loans properly. You can have a property in Queensland and go across the border into New South Wales and be confronted with different loan conditions set down by the states. This inconsistency has caused a great deal of difficulty for many producers around the country. This bill is about consolidating this work into one central point where we'll have a national body that administers these loans. The modelling has been done. The cost to administer the loans at a federal level is almost netted off by the costs that currently exist, where the states are paid to administer these loans in what, I would argue, is a most inefficient fashion. The loans are paid and they get 2.5 per cent of the gross value of the loan to administer it at state level. Mind you, I think—and I'll stand corrected; I don't mean to do anything to mislead the Senate—that Victoria and Western Australia have put the Commonwealth on notice that they intend to increase that management fee to about five per cent. If you want to talk about an abnormal cost to administer the loans, that's the way to do it. Leave it until these states, one by one, increase their share of these loans that they administer to a point of around five per cent and then we will start to deal with the ratio of the cost to administer to the cost of the loans and we'll be in a fairly inefficient space. This bill will provide a body that will consolidate and manage these loans across the country in a fair and equitable fashion. The corporation will also administer the government's water infrastructure promises: the $2 billion in the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It is a facility that will allow states to make applications to put much-needed water infrastructure into our various states. It provides the states with concessional loans over a period of time. In both of these instances the money doesn't leave the balance sheet. The money remains on the balance sheet of the Commonwealth. It's not as it was once, where grants were made to people that offset their interest costs. That money never came back. This money will never leave the balance sheet of the Commonwealth, apart from the administration costs, which, I understand, will be offset against the slight uplift in the loans between the Commonwealth and particular producers. I do share Senator Leyonhjelm's concern about some producers who get access to these concessional loans. There's quite a bit of work being done that will set some of the guidelines into the future—certainly it's a policy position that I've been pursuing—that will tighten up and incentivise these producers to make themselves more resilient in certain circumstances, such as these dry conditions. I mean, it is an arid nation. As sure as night follows day, dry periods are going to follow more prosperous periods. These people are the subject of market conditions. Consequently, when it gets particularly dry, they're forced to sell their commodity—in this case, livestock. You can watch the marketplace over the last 30 or 40 years. I've studied it. Study the graph. When they most need a form of income, this natural disaster causes them to have to sell their livestock at a much reduced price, as is the case now. If we had drought-breaking rains right through the west of Queensland, you would find these producers—as I said in the earlier part of my presentation—having to pay 400 or 500 per cent more than the sale price of their old stock for breeding stock to replace their stock. This is not legislation that's come into this chamber or anywhere else for an appropriation of money. This money exists. This money sits in the budget, and this money is administered as has been directed by this place and the other place with the governing legislation to date over time. It's not looking for additional funds; it is about managing the existing funds much more efficiently than we have seen in the past. By consolidating it under one Commonwealth roof, the Commonwealth will have the ability to move nimbly across the nation. In this case, it will make us nimble enough to intervene in the lives of producers and people in agricultural pursuits by supporting them at a much earlier stage; therefore offsetting some of the critical issues that occur when they get into such distraught financial circumstances that there's no recovery. I've met with the banks over a long period of time, and the banks are anxious to ensure that they too support their customers in this space. They get it. They have been very tolerant. This is the private sector. Senator Leyonhjelm suggested it doesn't have a tolerance. Well, it does have a tolerance. Many of the banks or most of the banks, despite some of the publicity that's directed at them, have dealt with these producers in a very even-handed way. They've stood with them for many years, understanding that the cycles in the bush are more like the cycle of a decade than a cycle we might have in parts of the country where things are more predictable in terms of the weather conditions for producers of agricultural commodities. I really do commend this legislation to the Senate. I think everyone in this place knows I have a serious place in my heart for people in agriculture and people who live in provincial Australia. I can tell you: I've looked at this legislation very thoroughly, and there is no aspect of it that I fear for our government either from a financial point of view or in creating artificial structures or architecture around primary production in this country. I do accept Senator Leyonhjelm's reference, though we disagree on volume. I think by centralising this we will be able—I understand there's a mood for this—to put incentives and conditions around potential lending, when these people are fronted with natural disasters, which will incentivise them to somehow mitigate the prospects of drought or dry periods of time in their life. I think a lot of thought has gone into this. It's a very plain piece of architecture, for those who have studied the bill. It's not complicated. It's about centralising the distribution and management of the loans along with the water facility. I think it is a much better position than what we have at the moment, where each of the states is putting its own rules on. So it's my position that I commend this bill to the Senate. 18:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank you for the opportunity to speak about the need for investment in regional areas of Australia. The Northern Territory is certainly one of those regions in absolute need of increased levels of investment. For our roads, essential services, housing and health, the need for increased investment to meet the level of need, most especially in remote areas, is extreme. But this proposed Regional Investment Corporation will do absolutely nothing to increase investment where it's really needed the most. We know how well the last concessional loans scheme that this government set up is going. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has one project, more than two years on—one project, $5 billion. Yes, I've certainly had a briefing, as recently as today, to find out where the NAIF is at and what steps have been taken. Promises were made in the legislative framework setting up that establishment, promises of so many projects that were already in the pipeline—which were not, once the NAIF was established. So already the track record of this government is very much there for us to see. Here we are, two years down the track, and still there is not one job, certainly not in the Northern Territory and not in our regional areas where we desperately need them the most. I've just travelled from Queensland right across to WA, looking at jobs for first-nations people in Townsville and Palm Island and the opportunities that should be there, which are not, and across to Perth and Kalgoorlie. Our regions desperately need support. They desperately need to know that this government has got it right. But we know from the experience that we've seen that you haven't got it right. You just cherrypick and think you can put together programs without a basis. Read through the bill and look at the positions: a three-member board with responsibility for $4 billion in concessional loans. There is no doubt that our farmers across Australia need support. There is no doubt. We recognise that there have to be steps for each area and each group around the country that require assistance at certain times. But what you've put together here doesn't give the confidence that's required. And the reasons you're doing it don't give the confidence that's required, especially when we can see that there is already a record here with the NAIF. The new Regional Investment Corporation will set up quite a few new jobs in Orange—Orange, and that's it. Where else? What else are we talking about here in the Senate in relation to this corporation? It is certainly good for the people of Orange, but where was the objective assessment of the best place for this corporation to go? Is this an example of how the whole process of setting up the RIC has been? Has it been another exercise in pork-barrelling? The current loans that are administered by the states and territories will remain the responsibility of the states and the territories, so establishing a new body to administer new loans is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. It's inefficient and it's incredibly costly. It is basically spending, at a cost to taxpayers of $81.4 million over the forward estimates, on a body that is replicating what state and territory governments are already doing. That's not sensible planning. That's unwise spending. Business improvement concessional loans are already made available to Northern Territory farmers and pastoralists facing hardship. What the Northern Territory desperately needs is proper investment in infrastructure and job creation. The NT government is certainly doing a great job under its housing programs, trying to meet unmet needs in remote Indigenous housing. If we're really committed to closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage then improving housing is key to improving outcomes. The Northern Territory Labor government's record $1.1 billion remote housing program is creating jobs, building local skills and improving the lives of hundreds of people in remote Aboriginal communities right across the Territory. Early room-to-breathe work, which sees additional living spaces— Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 The Northern Territory Labor government's record $1.1 billion remote housing program is creating jobs, building local skills and improving the lives of hundreds of people in remote Aboriginal communities right across the Northern Territory. Early room-to-breathe work, which sees additional living spaces built onto existing homes, has already created 54 new local jobs and training opportunities across the Territory, with hundreds more to come. This will continue to build local economies and improve community outcomes. To date, 146 additional living spaces are underway or completed, and this has begun to ease overcrowding in 21 remote Aboriginal communities. Training opportunities are having a positive flow-on effect. Skills can be applied across both programs and will lead to ongoing jobs in remote communities. And why do I share this with the Senate? It's really about the impact the Northern Territory is having in relation to investment. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's second reading speech, where he makes reference to the states and territories. Constructing the Regional Investment Corporation, or this entity, is about getting rid of the middleman, which is what the Deputy Prime Minister says here. I find there are actually more questions as a result of looking through the bill and his second reading speech. I think: 'How can the Commonwealth look at state and territory governments as the middleman? What are the steps that are being taken to actually analyse where the deficiencies have been?' None of that is explained. And there's no convincing about the real reason behind this. If this is about ensuring a smoother, more efficient process that does deliver for those farmers who are really struggling out there, that's not what I see in this second reading speech, and I'm not convinced that this has been done in the best interests of those farmers out there. Why not continue to keep working with the states and territories across Australia? In terms of the Northern Territory, I will talk again about the investment in regional Australia. It is to build infrastructure, create jobs and give remote communities in particular a future. Remote communities are screaming for support from, as I said earlier, the CDP, the cashless welfare inquiry—all of these. We can see as we travel around the regions that there's a dire need for support, but give confidence in the way you're making your decisions. This is not one of those decisions that gives confidence. The government's program, the jobs program in remote Australia, the Community Development Program, is of course an abject, expensive failure that isn't creating a future in remote communities, isn't creating a pathway to employment and certainly isn't creating jobs unless you work in a Centrelink call centre. This government's attitude to investment in regional and remote Australia is so questionable. The Northern Australia Roads Program is another example of how you've really dropped the ball. The Tanami Road, a vital link for resource companies, pastoralists, local communities and tourists, is crying out for investment. We've been waiting on a commitment to the Tanami for years. It's a shocking road. It's a road train killer. Labor is not supporting the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. 19:34 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia By way of preliminary observation, I take note that the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers is due to report on 29 November. This is an inquiry that was initiated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. It was supported by me, representing Australian Conservatives; the coalition; the ALP; and the Nick Xenophon Team. I note that the Greens and Senator Hinch opposed that inquiry, but here we are, weeks before the scheduled reporting date, discussing the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. By way of acknowledgment, too, I must say that there's no doubt the major banks struggle to understand farmers. I think they struggle to understand the stress they come under during periods of drought and other unforeseen climatic events that affect our agricultural production. The big banks struggle to extend the grace to farmers that they need due to the sporadic nature of their cash flow. There may be one or two exceptions to this rule, but I think it's the stuff of rural legend that farmers always find a way to make themselves scarce when the bank manager comes to visit and that bank managers find their way to make themselves scarce when farmers actually need some money. But you've got two choices when it comes to markets not working well for everyone. Australian Conservatives support more competition. We believe it's the way to provide the solution to problems such as the one we're confronting. Successive reviews support that aim. We have new banks popping up all the time; they specialise in particular areas and in particular areas of financing, and this is extended into the regions of agricultural production as well. In fact, in the era of the internet there are probably more opportunities to access a variety of loan sources than ever before. If you don't like the service you're getting—I know it's difficult and that it's not as easy as some will make out—there are plenty of alternatives available. But, of course, there is another alternative solution proffered by many in this place—and I say by too many in this place. When confronted with every single market problem, even if government created the problem in the first place, the answer for these people is to expand the role of government to fix the problem that the government created originally. And so it goes. It was Ronald Reagan, I think, who said that there is nothing as like perpetual life as a government program because they're constantly trying to fix their previous mistakes rather than admit it was a complete disaster, move along and start something else. This Regional Investment Corporation Bill is no different to that. This is effectively a federal takeover of the distribution of drought relief and financing. In some respects it is back to the future, because we're going back 43 years and reinstating what is in effect the Commonwealth Development Bank. This is not a small-government measure. This is not a measure that is designed to reduce the size, scope and reach of government. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's engorging government. It's providing even greater authority to the Commonwealth government at the expense of the principle of federation and also at the expense of this whole notion that those closer to the action are better placed to make decisions on that. So it's not a decentralisation measure; it's a centralisation measure. It has all the hallmarks of socialist politics and Keynesian economics. It is, perhaps, also a potential breach of our Constitution, which is something that I will, and do intend to, return to later. But by way of acknowledgment I have to recognise that some states, like South Australia, which is the state that I represent, have done an appalling job of managing Commonwealth farm assistance. Our farmers there have been crying out for help, but the state government has been too slow, too greedy and too inept to distribute the funding appropriately, and it's been too strict in applying the program—principally I think because it doesn't want to. SA's performance under this regime has been totally appalling. But the real question I'm going to be interested in seeing the answer to when this bill comes to a vote is the response of the Xenophon team, because the Xenophon team have been pushing for a centralisation of this sort of funding for a very, very long time. He had a private member's bill on this topic, and it was all about the Commonwealth parliament becoming the solution, because that was how he could get a headline down in South Australia. But, now he's recognised his inability to enact this sort of behaviour, Senator Xenophon is ditching the Commonwealth and going back to the South Australian parliament, or intends to do so, because he's got all the solutions there. If Senator Xenophon at one time supported this bill and the centralisation of funding because that was where the Commonwealth could do the most good, my question is: why is he going back to the South Australian parliament and how will he vote on this, given that it is a South Australian responsibility currently? That brings me to the point which I may share with Senator Xenophon, which is that the government in South Australia is truly hopeless. I actually believe the opposition is truly hopeless too. Minister, that may hurt a little bit, but they are hopeless. The government deserves to lose office, and the alternative government doesn't really deserve to be elected. So I think there is a better way, but the ultimate criterion here is that, if the states are failing at something, it's not for the Commonwealth to step in and pick it up and try to be all things to all people; it's up to the Australian people to get rid of the incompetent state governments, and that takes a strong state opposition to highlight the flaws and the failings of this sort of stuff. If people want a government in South Australia that believes there is prosperity and people outside of Gepps Cross, as the colloquial saying goes, they need to install a government that actually cares—not one that's just going to go through the machinations of getting re-election but one that wants to get proper beneficial outcomes. So that's my concern. We're being asked to abrogate a number of key principles in this. One is that the Commonwealth government should be limited in its size and scope and growth and reach. Secondly, we are asked to abrogate the principle of federation, that states have particular responsibilities and, whilst the Commonwealth can advance moneys to them, the acquittal of those funds lies with them. If they fail in that, replace the government and get someone worthwhile that can do it. I also have to be reasonable and say that the intent is to have the Regional Investment Corporation also responsible for $2 billion worth of loans to build water infrastructure, in effect, in the Murray-Darling Basin. At present, the department administers those loans. I know a selling point in some of the lobbying efforts here has been that there would be no additional cost to the Commonwealth; there would be no growth in the administrative capacity of it. But I note the department has already struggled to identify some of those worthy projects that were able to deliver the water savings necessary to attract the funding. There is a huge question mark, I have to say, about the conduct of some of the responsible entities in regard to the Murray-Darling Basin system. I have repeatedly called for a judicial investigation into it, based on the allegations. I don't believe the states have been honest in this respect. In one in particular, New South Wales, we've seen some preliminary findings, essentially, of corruption and cover-ups. I think there's a whole lot more to come, and it concerns me greatly that some of the people pushing hardest for this legislation are linked to, or have their roots and influence in, New South Wales. I can't put it any other way. I do not trust the New South Wales government to get it right in water policy, and I don't trust the South Australian government to get it right in the distribution of these loans, but I don't have any more faith in the Commonwealth to be able to do it either. Without knowing what I don't know, I'm not prepared to suspend my principles and the important values that I think have built the differentiation of powers in order to satisfy the demands of a few. Finally, I want to put into context the constitutional approach that this may raise. The Australian National Audit Office observed in April last year that, on the constitutional basis of this corporation, there was an: … absence of specific legislative powers to enable the Commonwealth to deliver concessional loans directly to farming businesses … So: … under each concessional loans program funds were loaned to the states and the Northern Territory … to establish schemes to provide loans to eligible farming businesses … I believe that that is the appropriate mechanism and should continue. I'm concerned that this regime may be setting up a constitutional challenge, despite relying on the broadly interpreted corporations power, and ultimately may cause more problems than it purports to solve. This regime may indeed get through. I, and on behalf of the Australian Conservatives, have severe concerns about it. I'm not convinced it is the right approach to the age-old challenge of farm financing. 19:45 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I'm pleased this evening to be making my contribution on the legislation before us tonight, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, not least because it goes to the nature of an issue that's very important to Western Australia. No-one can deny that the success of Western Australia is built on many things, not least the enthusiasm and entrepreneurship of its people in the mining and resources sector but also, significantly, the agricultural sector. Let me begin by saying that I have some sympathy for the arguments that Senator Bernardi and the Australian Conservatives have put forward. I, too, am a very strong federalist—indeed, I came to this place a number of years ago and fought vehemently against the recognition of local government in our Commonwealth Constitution, on the basis that I decided— Senator Carol Brown interjecting— Senator SMITH 241710 And I was pleased to be supported by many colleagues on this side, Senator Brown. I came to the very strong conclusion that recognising local government in our national Constitution would undermine local decision making and the independence of local communities. I am pleased to say, or pleased to remind you, Senator Brown, that, when that proposition was put twice before to the Australian people, they also rejected it. So, on that issue, I was just carrying the argument of popular opinion. But what we are talking about tonight gives effect to the 2016 election commitment to establish the Regional Investment Corporation and gives an opportunity to streamline some of the payments that are made through the department of agriculture to support agricultural communities. Most important, of course, to my home state of Western Australia are those farm business concessional loans programs. But the RIC will support farmers and agricultural communities in states like Victoria and South Australia as well, because it will become the vehicle to which the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility will be attached and future programs supporting agricultural communities. It is interesting: over the last few weeks, I have had an opportunity on a number of occasions to meet with the new Western Australian minister for agriculture, the Hon. Alannah MacTiernan, our former member for Perth. I am happy to put on the public record that I have been very grateful for the opportunity that she has given to me to talk about wild dog control in Western Australia—a very important issue—and I am positively expectant that we might get some good news from the Western Australian state government on wild dog control. But also she shared with me some concerns she has about the RIC and how it might work—importantly, how the farm concessional loans scheme might actually operate and how that might affect Western Australian farmers. But I think, at the outset, it is important to put on the public record just why an organisation like this is important generally but, more specifically, why Western Australia should be given a very strong voice in the governance of the Regional Investment Corporation when it's finally established. We know that, under the governance arrangements that will be put in place, it will have three board members. We know, through the committee inquiry process, that the governance arrangements were the point of discussion among and some commentary from Western Australian stakeholders. I might just go to that point first. In the committee process around this particular piece of legislation, various Western Australian organisations—not least, of course, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, my home state, but also the Western Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development—drew attention to and raised some concerns about the governance arrangements that might be put in around the RIC. It might just be worth quoting from page 18 of the committee report, which draws out some of these concerns: The Pastoralists & Graziers Association of WA (PGA) argued that a board membership of three was too small, and that the governance arrangements 'enshrine political influence' into what should be a purely commercial operation. It suggested that the size of the board and its composition should be similar to that found in private financial organisations in order to cover the range of qualifications, skills and experience listed in section 17 of the bill. Similarly— another submitter— queried whether a board of three members would be 'sufficient to effectively govern' the RIC and that there was a risk that the board would 'end up having a limited range of experience'. Of course, one of the merits that have been argued in regard to the governance arrangements around the RIC is that it will be seeking to draw out and bring to the board of the organisation a skill set that is broadly focused on agricultural interests—banking and finance, of course; agribusiness experience; financial consulting; auditing; economics—and brings to the governance experience that directly affects rural communities and rural industries. I think it is worth sharing in my contribution tonight what the Western Australian Department of Industries and Regional Development had to say: The Western Australia Department of Industries and Regional Development (WADIRD) also raised concerns about the proposed board in terms of both the membership under clause 16, and what constitutes a quorum under clause 29. It argued that as RIC is to manage a loan portfolio of $4 billion, and up to 1000 clients, while operating across all jurisdictions with variations in climatic and production zones, three members would provide an 'insufficient spread of skills and experience for effective governance'. It's important to put those concerns on the table to remind people that there has been an important debate about the governance arrangements in regard to the RIC, but I say to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and to the Western Australia Department of Industries and Regional Development: you have nothing to fear. There is nothing to fear in a board membership of three if we make sure there's a very, very strong Western Australian voice amongst those three board members. Tonight I want to make the case that having a Western Australian board member on the RIC doesn't just suit our parochial interests. It is very, very important when you contemplate or are reminded about the significant contribution that Western Australian agricultural communities make in supporting Australian agriculture and Australian exports. Western Australia's agriculture and food sector not only is a world-class producer of high-quality, safe agriculture, food and fibre products that are vital to our state's economy but also is important to feeding not just Western Australians but people across the whole country, and it significantly supports our export arrangements. The purpose of this body is to better administer farm loan arrangements to farmers in a state like Western Australia, which has such a huge potential. We hear a lot about the export potential of other states and territories, but you have only to look at wheat and the importance of wheat exports not just to the Western Australian agricultural economy—the great bulk of wheat that is produced in Western Australia is exported. That is a very, very different scenario to the rest of the country. When you think about the contribution that wheat and other grains make to supporting the breadth of the wealth that is generated in this country through agriculture, I would argue that it is very, very important to have a strong Western Australian voice and strong Western Australian skills not just on the board of the RIC but in its management and its infrastructure. It might be worth focusing on the export focus, which is the bread and butter of Australian agriculturalists. The agriculture sector in Western Australia places a high value on its overseas markets, agriculture being WA's second major export industry. It's worth reflecting on that. Australians know all too well that Western Australia's wealth and productivity are very much built on the success of its mining and resource development, but, after that, agricultural exports account for the second-largest volume of exports. In Western Australia, our state exports account for 80 per cent of our agricultural production. Eighty per cent of our agricultural production is exported. In 2015-16, WA exported an estimated $7.6 billion in agriculture and food products. The top three products were wheat, barley and canola. In the past decade about 70 per cent of the state's agrifood exports have been destined for Asia, with China, Indonesia and Vietnam some of our largest markets. With growing demand for premium agrifood products, especially across Asia, WA is in a good position to build on its reputation as a reliable supplier of clean, safe and high-quality food to overseas markets. That's important not just in terms of the volume of agricultural exports. We know that as incomes start to rise across Asia—as middle-income earners and the size of that middle-income bracket start to increase across the Indian subcontinent, across North Asia and across South-East Asia—there are very, very real and tangible opportunities for Western Australian agricultural producers, particularly those that are producing high-quality, premium products. And of course the free trade agreements which the coalition government has successfully stewarded are critical in embedding that future success for the Western Australian economy. I might just reflect briefly on the current farm debt experience across broadacre and dairy farms across the country. People might be surprised to learn that over recent years New South Wales has witnessed a 9.7 per cent increase in farm debt over broadacre farming properties; Victoria, 16.9 per cent; Queensland, a reduction by 9.2 per cent; Western Australia, an increase of 8.6 per cent; South Australia, just one per cent; Tasmania, a reduction of 16.6 per cent; and the Northern Territory again a reduction, by 3.3 per cent. But of course the average across Australia is a rise in farm debt across broadacre properties of, on average, about 4½ per cent. That demonstrates that the issue of supporting agricultural producers, supporting farmers, is very, very important. Many of us in this place will appreciate—perhaps not all of us to the same degree—that farming communities and farmers and their families have to live with uncertainty. They live with uncertainty not just in terms of the variable climate, which we hear a lot about in this place, and not just in regard to severe drought experiences but also, we know, in dramatic fluctuations in commodity prices. It is the price we pay for being an open, export-orientated market economy, one that I would argue has benefited regional communities for many, many decades. I firmly put myself on the side of the ledger that says that open markets, low tariffs and export-orientated controls that are deregulated are by far the most effective means in being able to deliver success to farming families and to farming communities. It is worthwhile just briefly sharing with the Senate tonight the success that has been enjoyed by the Western Australian wheat industry, by the Western Australian barley industry and by the beef community. We know that wheat is the major grain crop produced in Western Australia, making up 65 per cent of annual grain production and generating between $2 billion and $3 billion for the Western Australian economy—not the national economy—each year. Wheat production occurs across the Western Australian Wheatbelt region on 4,000 mostly family-run farms ranging in size from just a thousand hectares to almost 15,000 hectares. WA generates 50 per cent of Australia's total wheat production, with more than 95 per cent of this exported, predominantly to Asia and the Middle East. Western Australia produces white-grained wheat varieties that generate high flour-milling yields and a bright white flour that is suitable for a range of products, particularly those of great interest to our trading partners in Asia. The area sown to wheat in Western Australia for the past 20 years has remained relatively stable at between four and five million hectares, but over the same period production has increased strongly with improved yields. As a result, we're seeing production of eight million to 10 million tonnes per annum. The WA wheat industry has been the bedrock of WA's agricultural success. I argue that it's been a significant contributor to the success of the Australian agricultural sector. Barley is Western Australia's second largest cereal crop after wheat, accounting for 25 per cent of the state's total cereal production and delivering just over $0.6 billion in barley grain and malt export earnings each year. Forty per cent of the barley produced is delivered as malting grade destined for the Japanese, Chinese and Indian beer markets, with the remaining 60 per cent delivered as feed grade, the majority of which is sent not to Asia but to the Middle East. Finally, the Western Australian beef herd consists of approximately two million head, half of which range freely on extensive pastoral stations in the northern rangelands of Western Australia, while the remainder roam the lush pastures of the agricultural region of the south and south-west of the state. The issue of governance around the Regional Investment Corporation is one that the new Western Australian government will pay particular attention to. It's one that I'll be paying particular attention to because I think we know that the Western Australian agricultural communities provide a tremendous level of economic activity that supports the entire Australian agricultural industry. But, more than that, I argue that there's a level of innovation that happens across Western Australian farming communities. There's an appetite to try new techniques to make sure that we get the best productive value out of land. And I would add this point: what we're seeing in Western Australia is a generational change in farming communities. Once upon a time, we would see older farmers and their families, but now, I'm pleased to say, communities like Bruce Rock, Merredin and others are coming to life because young people—predominantly men but not exclusively—are taking on the challenge of raising their families in regional communities. They are taking on the challenge of looking after larger agricultural properties that, in good times, bring tremendous benefits to local communities. I reiterate two important points. The governance arrangement is one that I hope to talk to the federal minister for agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, about. I have also been in communication with the state agricultural minister to talk about what we can be doing to make sure that the concessional loan arrangements that would be put in place under this new scheme properly benefit Western Australian farmers. In a continent as large as ours, it is hard to argue that there shouldn't be a consistent form of eligibility requirements. Farming conditions are variable enough and different enough on the west coast of Australia to those on the east coast of Australia and, indeed, in Tasmania that it warrants having eligibility criteria that better reflect local conditions in the particular states. This is a point that I know the Western Australian government is keen to argue and keen to debate with the Commonwealth. But you don't have to be an agricultural scientist or a senior climatologist to know the value of having a consistent set of eligibility criteria across a continent as large as ours, with such varying weather conditions—I hope you're nodding in furious agreement, Mr Acting Deputy President. We know that, when farming communities get afflicted with drought or floods in one part of the country, it is very likely, and probably entirely possible, that another region is experiencing bumper times. There is one particular case in point, and that is that the calculation between annual versus seasonal data in determining the eligibility criteria of Australian farmers has to change. That's important for WA farmers. Dare I say, I'm pleased that the new Labor state minister for agriculture, Alannah MacTiernan, is taking on this particular point. On this issue, I'm happy to barrack in her corner to make sure that Western Australian producers get the best possible deal that they can out of these new arrangements. I think the idea of putting the RIC in Orange is debatable. I have got to be honest with you. I don't know if putting it in Orange is the right thing to do or even totally necessary—ask Senator Williams or Senator Fawcett! If it has got to be in Orange, that's totally okay. In regard to the governance arrangements, let's make sure there is one prominent Western Australian with sound experience in agricultural industry that is one of those members on that three-member board. 20:05 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I too rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. I think it's really important that we move beyond the policy debate and the various barbs that fly across the chamber here and look at the real world. In the Adelaide Advertiser on 6 April 2017, the Australian dairy sector highlighted the issues with the current construct whereby the disbursement of any kind of government support or assistance for farmers who are struggling with things like drought conditions varies from state to state. I will start off by recalling the points that you made, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, that Australia steps up to the plate willingly and comprehensively where we see natural disasters strike the coast in Queensland with cyclones and where we see weather events affect our neighbours in the Pacific. But, when natural disaster strikes our farmers in the slow and damning process of a drought, there are some in this place who would criticise the government for helping them. We see that the government is prepared to help, but, under the current construct, it depends very much on each state's administration as to how effective that help is. In South Australia, back in April, it was highlighted that only seven of the state's dairy farmers were given access to low-interest-rate loans amongst more than 150 that were handed out federally. I've got to say, as a senator representing South Australia: why is it that we should see South Australian dairy farmers struggling with drought treated in any way that is less advantageous than somebody in Victoria or New South Wales or Queensland when it comes to coping with conditions that are beyond their control? There has been more than $73 million in dairy recovery concessional loans shared amongst 135 Victorian farmers, but less than $7 million was directed to support South Australian farmers. About half the money that was allocated in the federal scheme has actually gone unallocated. It would be bad enough if the rules of the scheme were such that it actively disadvantaged South Australian farmers, but what we see here is that half of the money made available to the state government under the rules set by the Labor government in South Australia, which could have gone to supporting farmers in South Australia who were struggling to produce one of the most basic commodities that our community needs, went unallocated. How can you possibly argue for a scheme where money is made available to be administered by the states, and the states don't even allocate it, even though there are farmers crying out for that support? For those who want to sit in this glass tower on the hill in Canberra and talk about policy, about why this is a dreadful thing, and accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of all kinds of intentions in a New South Wales seat, can I direct your attention back to dairy farmers in South Australia who are calling out for reform of this scheme because they see that, compared to farmers on the east coast, farmers in South Australia who are facing equally legitimate challenges to the success of their business, producing one of the most basic commodities that our community needs, are being dudded. Not only is money not being allocated but that which is being allocated is not being allocated particularly effectively. A recent National Audit Office report found the average processing cost for each successful application under the Labor government in South Australia, for similar concessional loan schemes, was $416,000. In other states, the cost was as little as $21,000. That's a staggering difference. We've already heard that in South Australia half the money wasn't allocated to people who needed that support. But, given the cost of actually processing these loans, why would you support a scheme that allocates responsibility to a state government where the cost of processing was over $400,000, while other states could do it for as little as $21,000? How does that make sense? How could you support that kind of inefficiency? These are the kinds of issues that have led to the conclusion that we really need a national approach to this. Mr Curtis, who's the head of the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, indicated the difficulty South Australian farmers had accessing these loans. This is not about the Deputy Prime Minister—certainly not in South Australia—this is about my constituents. This is about dairy farmers who need that support. Let's look through some of the national figures, as at 31 August 2017. Let's have a look at the number of loans and the amount of funding that was allocated. If you ever need an example of why we need a nationally consistent approach to allocating the funding, these figures draw it out: in Queensland, over $400 million—$425 million—was allocated; in New South Wales, $345 million was allocated; in Victoria, $345 million was allocated; in South Australia it was a total of $105 million. That was from 2013-14 up until August 2017. As to the number of farm businesses that were approved, in Queensland, it was 456; in New South Wales, it was 306; in Victoria, it was 476; in South Australia, bearing in mind that this is a program that is delegated to the state government, it was 32. How can that possibly be fair to the taxpayers of South Australia? They see that the governments on the east coast have a scheme that is much cheaper and easier to access, with the result that we see far more farmers who are suffering from drought and other conditions getting the support they need, while in South Australia we don't. It's no wonder that people like the Wattle Range Council mayor, Mr Peter Gandolfi, has written to Premier Weatherill, urging him to improve access for funding to the dairy farming sector. It's no wonder, surprisingly, that the SA agriculture minister, Mr Leon Bignell, said he welcomed a nationally administered scheme. Here we have the state government—and I give them some credit for the fact they've acknowledged there's a problem—saying that they would welcome a federally administered scheme. I think it's a pretty poor admission for a state government to say they're not up to the job and they'd prefer the federal government to do it. Certainly the dairy farmers in South Australia, as they look at the efficacy of other state governments, are calling for change because they realise they're not getting the support that they need. Only two of the state's 65 suppliers to the Murray Goulburn and Fonterra milk companies have received the concessional loans that originate from the Commonwealth. That means that only $2 million of the $15 million available to South Australian dairy farmers—this was back in 2016—has been lent, while in Victoria in that time frame, farmers received over $30 million, and a further $20 million was made available. Farmers in South Australia are looking for some clarity and they're looking for more cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the loans. They're looking for the money that's actually available to be administered and provided to those farmers who need it as opposed to just sitting in an account somewhere, not being dispersed. Even the state minister in South Australia has called and said that he would welcome a federally administered scheme. That leads us to the Regional Investment Corporation. That's why the Turnbull government has introduced this legislation to establish the Regional Investment Corporation as a separate entity within the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. This means that in the future farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loans funding more quickly and more easily with a nationally consistent application and approval process. If for no other reason this Senate should support this measure, because for each loan, rather than looking at $400,000-plus, which is what the ANAO found in South Australia, that cost could come down as low as $21,000, which is what was found in other states. So, if all you are concerned about is the pure economics of it, the efficacy of the whole program, then you should be bringing it under more central control. The intent is that the Regional Investment Corporation will administer up to $2 billion in concessional loans designed to encourage growth, investment and resilience in our rural and regional communities. These concessional loans support the long-term strength, resilience and profitability of farm businesses by helping them to build and maintain diversity in the markets that they supply. Importantly for South Australia, we have a large irrigation community at the lower end of the Murray River. Investment there is important if these communities are to continue to be viable in terms of the businesses and the communities that support those businesses into the future. So the Regional Investment Corporation will also deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. This provides concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. These loans will provide an incentive to the states and territories to break ground on priority water infrastructure programs. These programs are things that can increase agricultural productivity and generate jobs and new opportunities for both communities and the businesses that they support; these are products that will support local and regional communities but also exports—an increasingly important part of Australia's economy. Certainly for South Australia, export has been an important part of our economy for a number of years. Once established, the Regional Investment Corporation will provide flexibility for the Australian government to respond quickly and efficiently to emerging crises like drought. Once the bill has passed through this place the Regional Investment Corporation is expected to be open for business in 2018, with this government making it a priority to get it up and established as soon as possible. Until it's operational, farmers who need support would still be able to apply through their state government mechanisms but, as I've just highlighted, particularly for people in South Australia, those state government mechanisms are difficult to access, they're expensive, they're bad for the taxpayer in terms of the capital productivity of the money that is put into those schemes and, importantly, they're not actually delivering the money available to the farmers who need it. Nationally, over $764 million in farm business concessional loans has been approved to over 1,400 businesses. When you look at that on a national scale, the amount that has come to South Australia is incredibly small. Some 257 farm businesses, equating to more than $141 billion, have been approved in the dairy sector alone. So, when you compare those national figures to the South Australian figures, you understand why the industry in South Australia is calling for a nationally consistent set of rules and an approach so that the government and the agencies—in this case, an independent body, the Regional Investment Corporation—will be available to respond quickly and effectively to the need of primary producers. Unfortunately, those opposite have said they will scrap the Regional Investment Corporation. I'd encourage people in South Australia to consider who in this place is actually supporting the primary producers that produce the basics—things like milk—that they and their families need. The coalition government is putting in place a structure to make sure that support is delivered more efficiently. I come back to those figures: $21,000 for other states and $400,000-odd in South Australia to deliver the same support. Why would you support a scheme that is that inefficient? The coalition government is looking to make an efficient scheme through the Regional Investment Corporation. Those opposite in the Labor Party and some of those in the crossbench have indicated that they will not support it—in fact, they would scrap it if they got back into government. The coalition is the government that recognises the importance of our agricultural sector. We're prepared to look at the facts and figures and work constructively with sectors such as the dairy sector to find ways we can provide them support. Taxpayers have provided that money through the federal government to date, but due to the inefficient structures that have been in place, particularly in South Australia, we have even the state minister there saying he would welcome a federal scheme. Taxpayers around Australia should expect this Senate chamber to support this measure tonight, not because, as those opposite are claiming, it's all about the Deputy Prime Minister but because farmers such as the dairy farmers in South Australia need support. They're not getting support currently. Where support does trickle through, it is incredibly inefficient compared to in the rest of Australia. So the Regional Investment Corporation is a policy in response to real need that has been expressed by farmers on the ground in South Australia. I would encourage members in this Senate to support this measure and to pass it now. Support this measure in order to support the farmers of South Australia and, indeed, throughout the rest of the states and territories of Australia so we have a nationally consistent scheme which is flexible and effective in its delivery of support for those who provide the very basics that our families in this nation rely on. 20:23 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. I think it is a very important bill and a very important debate. I will start by reminding senators how we got to where we are. The Regional Investment Corporation Bill, which establishes the Regional Investment Corporation, of course, is delivering on the 2016 election commitment which was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. We have seen, I think, a bit of a habit in this place from the Labor Party of doing all they can to stop the coalition from actually delivering on our election promises. It does go to their attitude when it comes to the meaning of election promises. We all remember what the previous Labor government thought about election promises. They felt they could scrap them five minutes after making it back into government—such as the promise, 'No carbon tax under a government I lead.' We have seen it with the frustration of many other parts of the government's agenda, where the coalition takes a promise to an election and the Labor Party ignores the mandate given by the Australian people and votes against it. But let's look at what this bill would do. It would deliver up to $4 billion in concessional loans under both the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It will also have the capacity to administer other programs in the future. Of course, this is pretty important to regional Australia. This is pretty important to encouraging growth, to encouraging investment and, of course, to ensuring that our rural and regional communities are able to continue to thrive and, in some cases, deal with the inevitable challenges that regional communities face. I will go in some detail into various elements of the bill, but the intent is very much to streamline the administration of farm business loans. It's to deliver national consistency to ensure loans are prudently and speedily assessed to help farmers in need. It will also be able to provide independent advice to government on projects for consideration under the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and then, of course, to deliver approved grants of financial assistance to states and territories to fast-track the construction of priority water infrastructure projects. Before I go further into other detailed aspects of the bill, it's worth talking about the Labor Party's position, because it's unclear where exactly they're coming from. The Labor Party says that it will scrap the Regional Investment Corporation. Labor announced after the 2017 budget that it would not support the RIC and proposed to pocket the $28.5 million in RIC establishment costs as budget savings. This is sort of the way that the Labor Party does budgeting, where their apparent saving would, of course, cost more than what they're proposing to save. If you look at the RIC over the past four years, you see that the government has paid $37.65 million to the states and the Northern Territory governments to administer the RIC. Of course, Labor states, such as Victoria and Western Australia, now want to be paid even more to deliver concessional loans. Up to five to eight per cent is what they're asking. Five to eight per cent is what these Labor states are claiming, and this would cost the Commonwealth a total of $59 million to $89 million over four years. Labor's approach—and we've seen this in all sorts of other areas of budgeting—would be to apparently save $28 million but see all of these additional costs. In making this ridiculous argument, the Labor Party falsely claims 'farmers are choosing not to take up the loans'. I can inform Labor senators that the reality is 1,402 farm businesses have been approved for more than $764 million. I will come back to some other elements there, but I go to what this bill is intending to do. It would establish the corporation as a corporate Commonwealth entity with a skills based board to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the corporation's functions. It would describe the functions of the corporation, including administering farm business loans and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, administering grants of financial assistance to the states and territories for water infrastructure projects. It would also identify two responsible ministers who will appoint the board and issue the corporation with an operating mandate. It will provide a power for rules to be made by the two responsible ministers prescribing future programs to be delivered by the corporation. It would provide for the operating mandate to direct the corporation about the performance of its functions, including: the objectives it is to pursue, expectations in relation to the strategies and policies to be followed, eligibility criteria for loans or financial assistance, management of funding and other matters. It would allow responsible ministers to also direct on classes of farm business loans, individual water infrastructure projects and the location of the corporation but prevent them from directing individual farm business loans. It would require the board to appoint a chief executive officer responsible for the day-to-day administration of the entity and for entering into loan agreements on behalf of the corporation. It would allow the corporation to employ staff to assist in performing its functions and would require a review of the act before 1 July 2024. That, to me, seems a reasonable way to go. If I can go back to some of the intent behind it, this would mean that in future farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loan funding more quickly and more easily with a streamlined and nationally consistent application and approval process. As Senator Fawcett touched on, that national consistency is important. The RIC will administer up to $2 billion in concessional loans designed to encourage growth, investments and resilience in our rural and regional communities. Of course, we know that concessional loans support the long-term strength, resilience and profitability of farm businesses by helping them to build and maintain diversity in the markets which they supply. In addition, the RIC will administer up to $2 billion in the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and this of course will provide concessional loans to states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. These loans will provide an incentive to states and territories to break ground on priority water infrastructure projects. Eligible water infrastructure projects will increase agricultural productivity, will generate local jobs and will create more opportunities for regional communities. Once established, the RIC will provide flexibility for the Australian government to respond quickly and efficiently to emerging issues, like drought or an industry crisis. Senator McAllister interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE We get the scoffs from Senator McAllister. Somehow this is humorous to her but it's not humorous. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE Senator Cameron says that to respond to droughts is a slush fund. That is the Labor position on responding to severe drought in regional Australia, responding to severe strains on many of our rural and regional communities. Senator Cameron writes that off as a slush fund. We disagree. Fundamentally, it goes to the Labor Party's views of regional and rural communities, that they can somehow be dismissed. Senator McAllister interjecting— Senator SESELJA HZE And there are the churlish interjections from Senator McAllister, who does seem to think that this is a joke. It is not a joke to those communities. It is not a joke to those who will be suffering in future. It is not a joke to those many farmers who have been taking up these kinds of schemes and who want to see this kind of certainty. The farm business concessional loans are currently open in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania. And, of course, the government is also negotiating agreement with Western Australia to deliver 2017-18 concessional loans. Going further, to the take-up, more than $764 million in farm business concessional loans has been approved to over 1,400 farm businesses, with over 1,140 farm businesses approved for a drought related or farm finance concessional loan. That is almost $650 million in funding. And 257 farm businesses, equating to more than $149 million, have been approved for a dairy recovery concessional loan. We know that these thousands of farm businesses are not just important to us as a nation in terms of what they produce on our behalf and they are not just important to us as exporters. They are also important to the families who are associated with them, they are important to those who are employed by them and they are important to those communities. When we see some of these farm businesses go under, we know that that can have a significant flow-on effect on these rural and regional communities. I go back to the point about the Labor Party doing all they can to stop us from meeting our election promises, which is becoming quite a pattern. There are also the costs—and it is worth emphasising those costs. Labor claim that they are going to get a saving of $28.5 million, yet we know that Labor states such as Victoria and Western Australia want to be paid five to eight per cent to administer these concessional loans. That alone would cost the Commonwealth between $59 million and $89 million over four years. This is how the Labor Party make savings—by imposing additional net costs on the Australian taxpayer. Unfortunately, that's been the pattern when they have been in government in the past. The coalition will work with the states and the Northern Territory to ensure farm businesses can continue to apply for concessional loans under the Farm Business Concessional Loan Scheme until the RIC opens for business. The government has made $250 million per annum available under the Farm Business Concessional Loan Scheme in 2016-17 and 2017-18 for drought assistance concessional loans, dairy recovery concessional loans and business improvement concessional loans. On business improvement concessional loans, in 2017-18 the Australian government has extended the eligibility of the existing Farm Business Concessional Loan Scheme to include farm household allowance recipients who exhaust their 1,095 days of entitlement on or before 30 June 2018. This will assist eligible farmers to continue to improve their farm businesses and become financially self-reliant, helping their local economies to prosper. This is a really important point: loans under the Farm Business Concessional Loan Scheme are available for a maximum of 10 years at a variable concessional interest rate of 3.09 per cent as at 1 August 2017 and with interest-only repayments for the first five years. These are very good terms. Drought assistance concessional loans can be used by a farm business so it can maintain operation during a drought, recover when the drought breaks and prepare for future droughts. They are open in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the Northern Territory. Dairy recovery concessional loans are available to assist commercially viable dairy farm businesses affected by those very disappointing retrospective decisions in 2016 by Murray Goulburn, Fonterra and National Dairy Products to reduce farm-gate milk prices. They are available in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. So it is a scheme that is well worth supporting and it builds very much on the coalition's record when it comes to drought policy—something Senator Cameron was dismissing as some sort of slush fund. We do have a strong record of delivering assistance to farmers who are doing it tough. Since we were elected, around $1.1 billion has been provided to support farmers and communities in hardship. Our policy program seeks to help build the sustainability and resilience of farmers to help them prepare to manage through droughts and other challenges affecting the farming industries. This was not the case when we came to office in 2013. We effectively inherited an empty cupboard when it came to drought policy. Labor had abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy, had cut the agriculture department's budget in half, had abolished Land and Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' R&D levies. Farmers well recall how former agricultural minister Tony Burke asked the Productivity Commission to review the rural R&D system. Labor wanted the R&D funds, which are matched by taxpayers, to go towards government priorities, not to the policies identified by the farmers who paid the levies. That is very important to note. The farmers pay those levies, and we believe that they should get the assistance when they need it. It shouldn't be ripped from them by a Labor government desperately looking to shuffle the money elsewhere. That stands in stark contrast to the coalition's policy. We confirmed that farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects with the intention of boosting farmgate returns. We know the importance to those individuals, families, farm businesses, workers, regional communities and in the end us as a nation of making sure that our farming communities continue to prosper and of making sure that when they are doing it tough, when they are suffering through no fault of their own but because of the very harsh conditions that so often occur in this country, they will be given the assistance they deserve. We've strengthened the rural R&D system with the $190 million Rural Research and Development for Profit initiative. We established the Farm Business Concessional Loans Program of $2.5 billion over ten years, which provides concessional loans with a 3.09 per cent variable interest rate on 10-year terms, with only the interest payable for the first five years. As I said earlier, thousands of farm businesses are taking this up, contrary to the claims of the Labor Party. We have the opportunity to take a step forward with this bill. We have the opportunity to honour the election promise that was made. We have the opportunity to further support and strengthen our regional and rural communities to ensure that they are able to prosper, that they are able to build their productivity and that those communities continue to be supported and can continue to thrive. That is something that should be supported in this place. It is an election promise that we take very seriously. We seek the support of the chamber, and I commend the bill to the Senate. 20:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the subject of the government's delivering on another one of our election commitments. In this case it is the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation, which will streamline delivery of up to $4 billion in farm business concessional loans and also the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. Before I get to the detail of the bill, I think it is important for those who may be reading the Hansard down the track, when it is in the annals of great parliamentary debates, or who may accidentally hear a recording of this to understand that the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—are the only parties for regional, rural and remote Australia. There are five senators who represent the Queensland Liberal and National parties in this place. You've got Ian Macdonald who lives in Ayr, and whose office is in Townsville; Matt Canavan, who lives in Yeppoon and whose office is in Rockhampton; Barry O'Sullivan, who lives and works in Toowoomba; George Brandis, who flies the flag for us in Brisbane; and me—my office is on the Sunshine Coast and I live on the Darling Downs. Eighty per cent of the LNP senators have their offices in rural and regional Queensland and actually live in rural or regional Queensland, so we understand the issues that face those who live in those communities and we understand the importance that farming plays for Australia. In my office, I have a sugar cane knife. It comes from the family. My dad was a cane farmer, my grandparents were cane farmers and my great-grandparents were cane farmers. You can look at my nice soft, svelte hands; you can tell that they are not the hands of a farmer. They are the hands of a person who has spent a lot of time typing away at computers. But I keep that cane knife of my dad—he didn't cut too much cane with it because he got a harvester—to remind me of my roots as someone who comes from a farming background. There is also a milk can in the reception area of my office and it has the name C&G Schneider on it. It was from mum's family, who were dairy farmers. It's an old rusty milk can that reminds me that Queensland was built on the backs of farmers who often started off with nothing. They started off with little more than a dream and a lot of hard work. That is what this party is about; this is what the Liberal National Party is about. It is making sure that farmers and their families, that farming communities and rural, regional and remote Queensland, have a voice in this government. That is why we are delivering on the Regional Investment Corporation. That is why we understand the importance of what this corporation will be able to achieve for Queensland and for all of Australia. It is important as a senator not only that our offices are based in regional Queensland but that we spend our time on the road, travelling around Queensland and listening to the concerns of people. It's not like some senators opposite who claim to understand Central Queensland because they fly there once every three months, but to go on the road because we live there or spend our time travelling on the road. I spent two weeks of the four weeks that we were away from this place driving around rural, remote and regional Queensland. I started up in Cairns, going up into the tablelands and going to Innisfail and Mareeba, then across to Normanton and Karumba. In terms of the issues faced there, there are the exciting things that can happen in Karumba with dredging to make sure the port is dredged so we can have live cattle exported directly—put onto ships directly out of the Karumba port. That is very, very important. I made sure that I went across to Burketown to meet with the council there, to make sure that they are listened to—as remote as the shire of Burke and Burketown are from Brisbane and from Canberra—in terms of the issues and the impact upon those communities there. I then went down to Mount Isa and Cloncurry. The issues were all the same in terms of these communities still recovering to an extent from the ban on live cattle exports. They are still angry at why government would make such a decision, but happy to know that the Liberal National Party government is listening to their concerns and is making sure that we are delivering on an election commitment that can help these farmers grow. After Cloncurry I moved on to two little places called Duchess and Dajarra, then on to Boulia, down to Bedourie and Birdsville, across to Windorah, down to Quilpie, Thargomindah, Cunnamulla, Charleville and up to Roma. In Roma I was looking at the largest sale yards in the southern hemisphere and some very exciting things that the Maranoa Regional Council want to do there. Then it was on to Dalby and finally home. That was two weeks on the road going through parts of Queensland that are still drought affected. This is one thing that makes me very angry: so many people in the rest of Australia, so many people on the coast and so many people even in the south-east corner of Queensland do not understand that close to 60 per cent of Queensland is still drought declared. There are shires in Queensland that are entering into their sixth and seventh years of drought. The graziers and the farmers are doing it so tough there. It is this government that, when it was elected, made the decision that it was there to help not just the graziers and the farmers, those on the land, but those who were in the towns and the communities around Queensland and the rest of Australia that are impacted by the drought and continue to be impacted by the drought. Since we were elected, we have delivered over $1.1 billion to support farmers, graziers and communities in need. Our program is designed especially to help build the sustainability and the resilience of farmers, to help them prepare to manage through future droughts, the current drought they're going through and other challenges that are impacting upon agriculture at the moment, especially as agriculture is shifting constantly from an industry that relies on labour to extend, especially those who grow crops, to more of a reliance on machinery. You only have to go up to St George to see what's changed there in how cotton is being picked now. It has really shifted from a labour-intensive industry to an industry where the cotton-picking machines are becoming automated and pulling out the round bales, making it easier and more economical for the farmers to grow more crops and also to invest back in the industry. When we came to office in September 2013, the cupboard in relation to drought policy was empty. There was nothing in it. That is very sad, because drought is a natural disaster. It is something that comes periodically in Australia, and you can look at the history of Australia and see the great droughts we've had over the years, broken by the wet and by a return to normal conditions. Drought is, in my view, a natural disaster, and it is shameful that any government would not see drought as such and would not have policies to help those who are impacted by drought. Labor abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. Labor cut the agriculture department's budget in half. Labor abolished Land and Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' R&D levies. Farmers well recall that former agriculture minister Tony Burke asked the Productivity Commission to review the rural research and development system. Labor wanted the R&D funds, which are matched by taxpayers, to go towards government priorities, in contrast with the policies identified by the farmers who paid the levies. By contrast, this government, a government that is unashamedly on the side of farmers and rural communities, confirmed that the farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects with the intention of boosting farmgate returns. We've strengthened the R&D system with the $190 million Rural Research and Development for Profit initiative. We've established the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme, worth $2.5 billion over 10 years. This has provided concessional loans at a 3.09 per cent variable interest rate for 10-year terms, with interest-only terms for the first five years. I will just divert from our drought policy for a moment, with your indulgence, Mr Acting Deputy President. Part of why government is here and why government exists is to help people when disasters such as drought fall upon them and to make sure that government policies such as the Regional Investment Corporation come into being, but it is also to make sure that the broad economic policies of a government are beneficial to society and the economy as a whole and to particular elements of that economy. That is why this government has invested so much time and effort into making sure that the free trade agreements have become a bastion of economic liberalism, showing to the world how and why free trade is good. For our agricultural sector especially, and also for services and so forth, but particularly for our agricultural sector, free trade has been beneficial. It has made sure that our agricultural produce, whether it is the sugar from Queensland or the cattle from Queensland—clearly, I'm biased; I am a Queenslander first and an Australian second—or the agricultural produce from Tasmania or South Australia, is getting into those emerging markets in Asia with their millions of middle-class people. And that is a fantastic thing. You will remember that when Labor were in power they did nothing about free trade agreements. They did a lot of talking about free trade agreements. But it has been Andrew Robb, the former trade minister, and now Steve Ciobo, his successor, who have been holding up that flame and going around the world knocking on doors loudly, putting their foot in the door, and then sitting down and talking to people about how trade is a good thing for their economy and for our economy. It is particularly so for our agricultural sector. We want to make sure that—when the drought does break in the 60 per cent of Queensland which is still drought declared, and when people have been able to restock, which will take some time—there will be the markets overseas for the graziers to send their stock to, and to make sure that, for live cattle or live sheep exports, there is a market so that money can go back into these rural communities. Government is working with the private sector to make sure that that happens. Fourteen hundred farm businesses have been successful in being approved for over $764 million in concessional loans, and 7,600 farmers have been granted FHAs since 1 July 2014. There are currently more than 2,700 farmers and partners receiving FHA payments. The coalition is also delivering $25 million for the control of pest weeds and animals in drought-affected regions, in recognition of the impact that pests can have on livestock during drought. And weeds can crowd out pastures in drought conditions. So, when I was out in the south-west, looking at the dog fences that have been built there, I saw these fantastic infrastructure improvements, for farmers and those local communities, to make sure that the wild dogs, which are a massive danger to sheep and to cattle, can be controlled and we can eradicate wild dogs from being a pest to our grazing communities. The government has also provided security of future funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service, and it has provided additional resources to ensure that farmers in drought-affected communities can access the support the service provides. That is something that I, personally, am very supportive of because my dad was a rural financial counsellor when he left the farm. In fact, he was the first one in Queensland. I understand that, as much as we love the lifestyle, farmers are actually running businesses. The best thing that rural financial counsellors can do is to sit down with farmers and their families and have that discussion about how they can stay on the land—or not, if the business is not operating as a business. Often, you will understand, with farmers and families, there are family partnerships, and sometimes family partnerships work very well and sometimes they can be a little bit dysfunctional. So it was having independent rural financial counsellors coming in and sitting down with the families around the kitchen table, pulling out the old shoebox with all the receipts and so forth—I'm talking decades ago now—and seeing whether their business, that farm, was viable to continue and what they could do to continue farming, or whether they needed to sell up and move on. So I am very happy, personally, that this government is doing such simple things as making sure that the Rural Financial Counselling Service has guaranteed funding and will help future generations of farmers and their families to stay on the land or, if they need to move on, to move on and start other businesses and let their land be farmed by those who may have more capital to invest. Drought affected communities in regional Australia have also been supported under the $35 million Drought Communities Program. This program is funding community projects, providing employment opportunities in 23 municipalities or shires across Australia. Sometimes we forget about this. When we talk about the drought, everybody thinks it's just the farmers and the graziers who are affected by it. But actually it probably has a greater impact, in a way, on the small towns and hamlets that make up rural Australia. They depend on the income from the farmers coming into the towns, and if the farmers aren't earning any money then money is not going into the towns. Sometimes it's quite hard for the businesses in towns to access support programs, because, while they are being impacted by a natural disaster, by this drought, they can't access programs. What we've done is made it fairer for those people who live in communities like Charleville in the south-west, or Winton or Longreach. We have made sure that the businesses there can access this funding program, so that they can ensure that our rural and regional communities continue to grow. The last thing Australia needs is for it to become a country that clings to the coastline, while the inside becomes a land of holiday farms and weekenders for stockbrokers from Sydney and Brisbane. We need to make sure that money is invested in the rural, regional and remote parts of Australia, so that the food bowl that is Australia can continue to grow the crops and raise the animals that we can send overseas, thereby making sure that we can not only feed the world but also continue to grow Australia. That is why I'm very proud that this government—and Minister Joyce in particular—has pushed so strongly for the Regional Investment Corporation. The Regional Investment Corporation will be the flagship to make sure that we can continue to invest in these communities. It is important that those who don't live in the capital cities have a voice in government. They never have a voice in government when Labor are in power. We saw that with live cattle exports and Four Corners. After the TV was turned off, former Prime Minister Gillard then turned off the protein supply to an independent, sovereign country. We saw the damage that it caused to our relationship with Indonesia. We also saw the hurt and damage it caused to families and communities, especially in Queensland, the Northern Territory and parts of Western Australia. This government will never let that happen, because we are on the side of farmers and proud to be so. 21:03 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania It's a great pleasure, as always, to follow Senator McGrath, who brings a wealth of experience as a senator for Queensland. Queensland is obviously a great agricultural state and one which contributes very much to the overall effort of agricultural production in Australia. But, of course, Tasmania is also a great agricultural state and also contributes greatly to the nation's agricultural production. As Senator McGrath said before me, the coalition is a longstanding friend of regional Australia and farmers in this country. Acting Deputy President Williams, as a member of the National Party and thereby a member of the coalition, you would know better than most people that, between the two parties that the coalition represents, we look after those who live in regional Australia and those who are involved in agricultural production in a way that no other party does and in a way that is absolutely outstanding. The Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 is seeking to deliver on yet another promise by the coalition government from the 2016 election. It is a bill that has the potential to be of enormous benefit to farmers right across the country, particularly farmers in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmanian farmers are innovative and resilient. The facility which will be set up by this bill will be of great use to them, as it will be to agricultural producers right across the country. Some of the best and most innovative farmers in Australia are in Tasmania, right across the highly-productive red soils of north-east Tasmania, whether it be dairy, vegetable, beef, wool, sheep meat or crops such as poppies—a very innovative product that was pioneered, in terms of growing it in Tasmania, some decades ago and that is of immense value to the Tasmanian and Australian economy. That fact supports the observation that Tasmania is a net exporter of goods and services. A large part of the exports that make up what we send out of Tasmania are agricultural products which our great farmers produce. There is no doubt that investing in infrastructure helps farmers in all sorts of ways, whether it be the roads they require to get their produce to market or whether it be the dams which assist to provide the irrigation that is required, particularly for innovative approaches to agriculture. Investing in infrastructure that is well thought out and appropriate assists in the productivity of farmers, the capitalisation on new ideas and the use of land that is available to farmers for the best possible outcomes. One of the classic examples of that is in Tasmania. Some decades ago, under the Liberal Premier Robin Grey, a significant investment was made in the Craigbourne Dam in the Coal River Valley. Coal River runs through Richmond, which, as a lot of Australians would be aware, is a historic sandstone town about 25 minutes out of Hobart. It also runs through Campania and Colebrook—a number of small towns. Prior to the investment in the dam, this was very marginal farming country—so much so, it was really only suitable for superfine wool production. As those who understand agriculture would understand—I'm sure you would Acting Deputy President Williams—superfine wool production is possible because it is marginal country. The merinos that graze there need to be kept right on the edge. If it's nice and green and lush their wool grows too thick. If it's fine and they get it perfect, you get good strong wool that's not tender but is superfine. You need that marginal country to do it. That highlights the marginality of the country that existed in the Coal River Valley prior to the dam going in. Nobody really knew what would come out of it but, following the dam being put in, Coal River Valley has turned into a magnificent area that produces stone fruit and vines for fine wine production. Innovative farmers have taken the water that was provided from the dam and they've put that land to its best use. That led to the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, of extra jobs as a result, and to a huge increase in terms of the gross state product that now comes out of the Coal River Valley. It is a magnificent example of how investment in infrastructure can lead to huge growth. A similar thing has happened more recently with the Meander dam that was put in under the Liberal premiers Ray Groom and Tony Rundle. There was a lot of opposition to that one, in particular, from the Greens. That dam has similarly helped develop the Meander Valley, which is a much bigger valley than Coal River Valley. It has seen huge improvements in terms of the production, the productivity of the area and the overall output that contributes to economic growth and the employment of people in Tasmania. Those two examples highlight the value that investing in infrastructure can have in terms of growing agricultural production and wealth for communities that are related to those communities where the infrastructure is made. Another example of an innovative Tasmanian farmer that just may well benefit from the proposals that are contained in this bill—not everybody would know—is Lindsay Bourke in northern Tasmania, who is a honey producer. Recently, he was named the producer of the best honey in the world at a North Korean honey event. I've tried his honey, and it's pretty good. But he's very innovative. He's been involved in the industry for decades and he has taken the steps that are required to ensure that he makes the best honey in the world. That has been proven. I could go through countless stories of innovative Tasmanian farmers and how this particular bill will support innovation in Tasmanian agricultural products, and who knows where that will end up? I said when I first started speaking that the coalition is a fantastic friend of regional Australia and farmers. One example of that is how we have approached drought policy over years. I heard you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, talking tonight about how much rain you've had in your part of New South Wales, but you don't always get that rain. The fact is that farmers across the country don't always get the rain they need when they get rain. It is a feast and famine type of business. In the good times, when the rain falls in the right amount and when you want it, things go well, but, when it doesn't fall in the right amounts or when you want it, it makes it very tough to run a business. And so it is from time to time necessary for government to provide support for farmers through drought. The reality is all parts of Australia have drought. Even the north-west of Tasmania, where it probably rains more than it does in most parts of our beautiful country, drought is a relative thing. If you have your farm set up on the expectation you are going to get a certain number of inches of rain in a particular year and you only get half or a third of that, even if that is a lot of rain compared to other parts of Australia, it's a drought for you because your farm doesn't deliver the output that it would if it had had the rain you were expecting. So drought occurs everywhere. It occurs in my home state of Tasmania, your home state of New South Wales and right across the country. The coalition government has a strong record in delivering assistance to farmers who are doing it tough. To go through that: since we were elected, around $1.1 billion has been provided to support farmers and communities in hardship. Our policy program seeks to help build the sustainability and the resilience of farmers to help them prepare to manage through droughts and other challenges affecting the farming industries. When we came to office in 2013, the coalition inherited what was essentially an empty cupboard on drought policy. That highlights the differences in approach between the coalition and those opposite when it comes to regional Australia and farmers. In fact, Labor had abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. They cut the agriculture department's budget in half. They abolished Land and Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' research and development levies. Many farmers would recall that former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke asked the Productivity Commission to review the rural R&D system. Labor wanted the R&D funds, which are matched by taxpayers. Every dollar put in by the farmers was matched by the taxpayers, so you get two for one. They wanted that money to go towards government priorities, in contrast with the policies identified by the farmers who actually paid the levies. By contrast, the coalition has confirmed that the farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects with the intention of boosting farmgate returns. We have strengthened the rural R&D system with a $190 million rural R&D for-profit initiative and established $2.5 billion over 10 years for a farm business concessional loans program which is providing concessional loans at a 3.09 per cent variable interest rate for 10-year terms with interest-only terms for the first five years. There have been 1,402 farm businesses successfully approved for $764 million in concessional loans as at the end of August this year, and 7,621 farmers and their partners have been granted FHA from 1 July 2014 to 13 October 2017—only a few days ago. Currently there are more than 2,700 farmers and partners receiving FHA payments. The coalition is delivering $25.8 million for the control of pests, weeds and animals in drought-affected regions in recognition of the impact that pests can have on livestock during drought and the fact that weeds can crowd out pastures in drought conditions, as you would well know. The government has provided security of future funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service and provided additional resources to ensure farmers in drought-affected communities can access the support provided by the RFCS. It is delivering a $20.2 million managing-farm-risk program, a four-year initiative to encourage farmers to take up multiperil and single-peril farm risk insurance. For decades, farmers have been asking for multiperil-crop-insurance options and, as a result of this initiative, there are a range of commercial products now on the market. All of these measures highlight the belief that this government has in farmers, in the rural folk of Australia, and in what they add to Australia. If you think about Australia, we are, as it turns out, one of the most urban countries in the world in terms of where the majority of our population live, but the true heart of Australia is outside the cities. It's the country of Australia. What makes Australia different to other countries is our outback and the flavour of the regional parts of our country. Sydney is a beautiful city and Melbourne is a beautiful city, but they're big cities and in a lot of ways big cities are all alike, no matter where you go in the world. What makes Australia Australia is the country. Our government recognises that, and that's one of the reasons why we put the money into supporting our regional Australians and farmers. Looking more particularly at the bill: as I mentioned, it establishes the Regional Investment Corporation. It delivers on the 2016 election commitment announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP. The corporation set up under this bill will deliver up to $4 billion in concessional loans under the government's farm business concessional loans program and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It will also have the capacity to administer other programs in future. It's very forward-looking in terms of supporting the needs of regional and rural Australians and those who are involved in the agricultural industry. These are critical initiatives—make no mistake—encouraging growth, investment and resilience in Australia's rural and regional communities. The corporation will streamline the administration of farm business loans, delivering national consistency and ensuring loans are prudently and speedily assessed to help farmers in need. It will provide independent advice to government on projects for consideration under the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and then deliver approved grants of financial assistance to the states and territories to fast-track the construction of priority water infrastructure projects. I've already mentioned to you the example of Craigbourne Dam, in Tasmania, and the incredible transformation that that valley went through over the subsequent decades after that money was invested in that dam. I think that is an outstanding case study to show what can come from forward-thinking investment in a dam. It was a very, very marginal valley. The farms in it were really only suitable for very marginal undertakings, but, with the introduction of a sure supply of water, farmers innovatively tried all sorts of things. Some things worked; some didn't, but it has ended up now being one of the primary stone-fruit-growing areas in Tasmania and also a very, very fine wine-growing region. That's an example of how investment in water infrastructure can actually deliver hugely positive outcomes for local communities, for job opportunities, for the overall productivity of farms and for contributing to gross state products. That has been a great thing for Tasmania. The major elements of the bill include establishing the corporation as a corporate Commonwealth entity with a skills based board to ensure the proper and efficient performance of the corporation's functions. It describes the functions of the corporation, including administering farm business loans and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, administering grants of financial assistance to the states and territories for water infrastructure projects. It identifies two responsible ministers who will appoint the board and issue the corporation with an operating mandate. It provides a power for rules to be made by the two responsible ministers to prescribe future programs to be delivered by the corporation. It provides for the operating mandate to direct the corporation about the performance of its functions, including on the objectives it is to pursue; expectations in relation to the strategies and policies to be followed; eligibility criteria for loans or financial assistance; management of funding; and other matters. It allows responsible ministers to also direct the classes of farm business loans, individual water infrastructure projects and the location of the corporation but prevents them from directing in relation to individual farm business loans, which I think is appropriate. It requires the board to appoint a chief executive officer responsible for the day-to-day administration of the entity and entering into loan agreements on behalf of the corporation. It allows the corporation to employ staff to assist in performing its functions. It requires a review of the operation of the act before 1 July 2024. Clearly the bill is comprehensive in terms of what it seeks to do to set up the corporation in order to do the task that it needs to do. It covers everything from responsible ministers and the degree to which they're involved to its remit and setting up the staff. The key messages that come out of this bill are that the coalition is introducing the legislation to establish the RIC, which was a promise. We're delivering on that promise. It means that, in the future, farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loan funding quickly and easily with a streamlined and nationally consistent application and approval process. The RIC will administer up to $2 billion in concessional loans designed to encourage growth, investment and resilience in our rural and regional communities. Concessional loans support the long-term strength, resilience and profitability of farm businesses by helping them to build and maintain diversity in the markets they supply. One of the reasons why that's required is—as I've already discussed and as you would understand, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—the cyclical nature of events that can impact on farmers. That's one of the differences that set these businesses aside from many other businesses: you really are held hostage to things that are outside your control, particularly weather events and so forth. The RIC will also deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. This provides concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. These loans will provide an incentive to states and territories to break ground on priority water infrastructure projects. Eligible water infrastructure projects will increase agricultural productivity, generate local jobs and create more opportunities for regional communities, which is a very effective summary of what I have seen with the Craigbourne Dam, in the Coal River Valley. Once established, the RIC will provide flexibility for the Australian government to respond quickly and efficiently to emerging issues like drought or an industry crisis. Subject to passage through parliament—and I would encourage all senators to support this bill because it is a bill of immense importance to regional Australia—the RIC is expected to open for business in 2018, with the coalition government making it a priority to get it up and running as soon as possible. The RIC will be established in Orange, New South Wales. Until the RIC is operational, farm businesses will be able to continue to apply for farm business concessional loans through their relevant state delivery agency. Farm business concessional loans are currently open in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, the Northern Territory and my home state of Tasmania. The government is negotiating agreements with Western Australia to deliver 2017-18 concessional loans. State and territory governments can apply for water infrastructure loans through the department at agriculture.gov.au/waterloans. My time is rapidly running out. In conclusion, I would again acknowledge the importance to Australia of our regional friends, particularly those who are involved in rural and agricultural production, and commend this bill to the Senate. 21:23 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to support and heartily commend this government for this initiative, which seeks to establish the Regional Investment Corporation to support farm businesses. It is yet another example of the differences between those on the two sides of the chamber. We are committed to keeping our promises and to supporting the rural sector and also small businesses, something that those opposite continue to struggle with. As my colleague Senator McGrath highlighted to this chamber, there is absolutely no question of the value of rural and regional businesses—their huge value to the economy and also to this government—and the contribution that this government is making. Again, unlike those opposite, this government is committed to helping those in the community and helping them achieve their full potential. Where can we see some differences and contrasts in this policy? You only have to look at the dissenting report on this bill, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, from the Labor Party. They said: Labor Senators believe the Government has neither established a policy rationale for the establishment of RIC nor justified the cost. We recommend the Bill be rejected by the Senate on that basis. Please! This was extensively discussed and consulted on with industry. It is very clear that this is a great investment in our farm businesses and our farming communities and in ensuring the viability and the growth of this enormous sector, a really important sector for our nation. Where do we start? In Australia, there is absolutely no doubt that we have a highly variable climate that varies between states and between years. It is subject to extreme weather conditions. Severe droughts, as we know only too well in Western Australia—unfortunately, like other parts of the country—severely affect farm businesses and the rural sector. Senator Cameron AI6 Do something about global warming then! Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Senator Cameron, take, for example, my own family— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Order! Senator Cameron! It was nice and quiet in here. I ask people to cease interjecting. Senator Reynolds, disregard the interjections, please, and continue. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Thank you, but I will take that interjection from Senator Cameron because I'd like to share my own family experience in this area. My grandfather was a World War I veteran. He survived Gallipoli and survived three years on the Western Front. He was a hearty, robust, resilient and innovative man. He came back and established a number of farms at Mukinbudin in Western Australia. He did some very innovative breeding of merinos and created some fantastic new breeds and new classes of wool. Like all farmers, as I said, he was resilient and hardy and worked damn hard, and he had a great product in his merino sheep. But while he could survive the rigours of Gallipoli and of the Western Front he couldn't survive the Depression, locusts and then drought. It just breaks my heart to know what that did to him and what it did to my uncles as well, who at a very young age were required to take the sheep up and down the roads to try to save them. But as a family they could not survive the weather no matter how innovative they were or how hard they worked. They could not fight the Depression, locusts and drought. All I can reflect on in reading about what this bill is about is what a difference it would have made to him, to the community and to my family had they had this sort of support available. Clearly, it was a different time but, again, it is unequivocally a great thing for Australian farmers and particularly for Western Australian farmers, who never look for a handout. They don't look for welfare but just sometimes they need that extra support when, despite all of their resourcefulness and their innovation, they just cannot survive. In Western Australia, as my colleague Senator Smith will know, our farmers are highly innovative in how they do their farming—in land management and also in their take-up of technology. Most recently, the new technological innovation they are taking up is Fitbit for cows and sheep! It might sound a bit interesting but, again, it's the use of technology to make the farm more productive and to create new agricultural opportunities, in particular for our export markets overseas. But sometimes, no matter how good they are, they need a bit of support due to weather conditions, and this is a great program to do that. Farmers and small businesses that rely on the farmers themselves in rural and regional areas need certainty and sometimes, as I said, they need support. This government is to be commended, and Minister Ruston is to be commended, for the work on this bill. This bill will establish the RIC as a separate entity within the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. Again, what this means is that when our hardworking farmers right across this country—who are providing not only important economic support for this country but also food for us and for many millions across the world—need it, they'll be able to access farm business concessional loan funding quickly and easily with streamlined and nationally consistent application and approval processes. Again, how can those opposite possibly think that this is not an unequivocally great thing for those in rural and regional Australia? While they block and attempt to scrap the RIC, this wonderful measure for our rural and regional communities, they propose to pocket the $28 million as budget savings: savings at the cost of our farming communities. What will the RIC do? It will administer up to $2 billion worth of concessional loans that are designed to encourage growth, investment and, importantly, resilience in our rural and regional communities. Concessional loans support the long-term strength, resilience and profitability of farm businesses by helping them to build and maintain diversity in the markets that they supply. Again, I am at a complete loss as to how those opposite could possibly seek to block this measure that is designed to support our rural and regional community. The RIC will also deliver the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility—again, an unequivocally great thing for a very parched country. This provides concessional loans to the states and territories to fast-track priority water infrastructure projects. Again, how can this possibly be a bad thing? It will facilitate making delivery of water projects faster and quicker and more affordable. These loans will also provide an incentive for states and territories to break ground on these priority water infrastructure projects. Eligible water infrastructure projects will increase agricultural productivity, generate local jobs and, again, create more opportunities for rural and regional Australia. The coalition government, despite what those opposite say, does have a strong record in delivering assistance to farmers who are doing it tough. Again, they're not looking for handouts or charity; they are looking for support to get them through the bad times so they can continue to prosper. So what has this government done since it's been elected? Around $1.1 billion has been provided to support farmers and communities experiencing hardship. We have a policy program, which I'm very proud to support, which seeks to help to build the sustainability and resilience of farmers, and to help them prepare for and manage droughts and other challenges affecting farming industries. What did we find when we came to government in 2013? Minister, what do you think we found? We found an empty cupboard: drought policy, nil; funding for drought policy, nil. Those opposite are not only opposing our policy now; they did nothing on it, and they didn't leave any money for drought relief. That's quite disgraceful. In fact, Labor also abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy, they cut the agriculture department's budget in half and, if that wasn't enough—if they weren't enough blows for agriculture—they abolished Land & Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' R&D levies. Farmers will, I'm sure, bitterly recall when the former agriculture minister, Mr Tony Burke, asked the Productivity Commission to review the R&D system. Labor wanted the R&D funds, which are matched by taxpayers, to go to other government priorities, in contrast to what the farmers, who actually paid those levies, wanted. Again, those opposite saw that as another big slush fund for them to channel money away from the rural and regional communities and into other policy areas. How does that contrast with what those on this side of the chamber have done? We've confirmed that the farmers' R&D fund should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects that have the intention of boosting farmgate returns. How unreasonable for those who actually pay the levies to have a say in how those levies should be spent and applied in the local communities and businesses in order to increase their farmgate revenue! The coalition is delivering another $25.8 million for the control of pest weeds and animals in drought affected areas, something I would have thought those opposite, particularly the Greens representatives, would have heartily endorsed. The government has also provided security of funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service and additional resources to ensure farmers in drought affected communities can access the support provided. These grants provide rebates of up to 50 per cent—up to $2,500—to eligible farm businesses for costs incurred in obtaining independent and professional advice to apply for a new insurance policy. Again, this is something that I know communities right across Western Australia would appreciate. It's an important grant for businesses. It might not sound like a lot, but $2½ thousand to a struggling farm business could mean the difference between being able to and not being able to buy food for that week or that month. Drought affected communities in regional Australia, including in Western Australia, have been supported by this government's $35 million Drought Communities Program. This program is already funding community projects and providing employment opportunities in 23 municipalities across the country. The government has also strengthened the Farm Management Deposits scheme, doubling the deposit cap from $400,000 to $800,000 and restoring the ability of farmers to withdraw farm management deposits without penalty within the first 12 months in case of drought. We have introduced the ability for financial institutions to offset the FMD deposits on farm loans. Again, this is another important tangible and practical benefit for our farming community right across this country. In fact, at the end of June, we had a record FMD holdings of over $6 billion, which is an increase of over $1 billion from last year. This is yet another demonstration of this government's commitment to the rural and regional communities across the nation. As if that weren't enough in terms of turning round the shameful lack of support for our rural and regional communities, particularly in relation to drought, we have also restored the ability of farmers to return to income tax averaging after 10 years existing in that system, another important support for farmers in distress. We are also very proud—I'm very proud—of the government for establishing a suite of policies to support farmers to prepare for and better manage their experience of drought. Our leadership, I believe, is in stark contrast to the previous six years under Labor, when there was no stability in drought policy and drought funding, denying the farming industry an opportunity to plan and prepare for those inevitable years of drought and low farmgate returns. Again, congratulations to this government for taking this initiative. The RIC will provide flexibility for the Australian government to respond quickly and effectively in the case of drought, which is something that our farming communities absolutely need. When they go through these situations, they need to know that they have got somebody there to support them and that that support will be provided quickly and efficiently to them. Subject to the passage of the bill through the parliament, the RIC is expected to open for business next year, with the government making it a priority to get it up and running. I understand that while farm business concessional loans are already open in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania, the government is still negotiating agreement with Western Australia to deliver 18 concessional loans. I very much hope that those negotiations will be speedily concluded. If that is not enough in terms of all the comprehensive activities the RIC will provide, it will also streamline the delivery of up to $4 billion worth in farm business concessional loans and, as I've said, the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. Stripping all of those things away and having a look at them altogether, the fact is that this bill was well consulted on, and industry was engaged. All of these measures you look at are unequivocally great outcomes for rural and regional Australia. Doing it this way will mean that hardworking Australian farmers will be able to access farm business concessional loans more quickly and more easily. This is a good government, and measures like this clearly demonstrate that we are looking after all sectors of Australian society. In this case, we are doing the right thing: we are righting the wrongs that those opposite inflicted on rural and regional Australia in so many ways—none more so than through drought and water policy. In their report, the Labor Party did say that there was no evidence that this was any good and that it wouldn't have any net benefit. I have clearly just gone through about 15 things that this will substantively do in a positive way for rural and regional Australia. I would also like to commend the government on how they are establishing this organisation as an independent body. In terms of the chair and the board, I think they have got a very rigorous board and a great balance of people to actually run the RIC. So there are very clear criteria. Again, I think this demonstrates the great deal of thought that has gone into putting the RIC together. The minister has got to be satisfied that individuals have the appropriate qualification in skills and experience to become a board member. I want to share with the Senate the different types of areas that they have to come from and why I think this will be such a robust board. These areas include: agribusiness and financial viability of businesses within the agriculture sector; banking and finance, which are important; water infrastructure, planning and finance; issues concerning rural industries and communities; financial accounting or auditing; government funding programs or bodies; and also legal experience. That is a great mix of people to go onto this board. Alternatively, the person will be eligible for appointment to the board if the minister is satisfied that that person has the relevant experience. Again, that is a very good governance model for an organisation that is very important. Finally, the Labor Party recommendations for this bill were that the government has neither established a policy rationale for the establishment of the RIC nor justified the cost and that the Senate should reject this bill. It almost leaves me speechless to see how those opposite could possibly have looked at this bill and what it is going to do and say that the government hasn't established a policy rationale when, clearly, rural and regional Australia needs this. I believe it is a very sound investment in the long-term viability of this important sector in Australia. So how does the dissenting report from Labor compare? They don't like it, don't agree with it and say they won't support rural and regional Australia. The government members came to a very different point of view. They said that Commonwealth assistance to Australian farming communities by way of concessional loans provides support to farmers during periods of financial stress to enable them to return to a stable and financially viable position. How can anybody on the other side of this chamber say that is not a great thing for rural and regional Australia? The committee also recognised that the bill provides a mechanism to provide finance more effectively to farmers that would allow them to manage the feast-and-famine cycle that characterises the sector. That is a statement of the obvious, but what are those opposite suggesting we do? They are suggesting absolutely nothing, effectively giving a two-fingered salute. Those opposite are honestly saying that these farmers do not deserve support. It is incomprehensible. The committee recognised that the establishment of the RIC underpinned by streamlined, nationally consistent concessional loans would assist struggling rural communities to themselves build resilience, capabilities and financial viabilities to deliver and sustain farming businesses and to increase farmgate profitability. The RIC would not only streamline the administration of farm business loans but also provide independent advice to government on projects for consideration under the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. How could those opposite possibly think that providing additional loans to state and territory governments to fast-track their water projects is not worthy of support? I mean, really! Again, those opposite have knocked back all of the recommendations and everything that's contained in this bill. What is the alternative? They left no money and left us with a dearth of drought policy and drought funding. What is the Labor alternative? We can hear the crickets chirping in here! So, for all of those reasons, I commend the government on this legislation and I commend the bill to the Senate. (Time expired) 21:43 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia In broad terms, the Nick Xenophon Team supports the second reading stage of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017. We believe that there is real scope and real benefit in having a regional investment corporation. I have long advocated that we ought to have a revival of the Commonwealth Development Bank, something that was established in 1960 by the Menzies government. It was a mechanism to prevent the feast-and-famine cycle for farmers that Senator Reynolds referred to, the boom-bust cycle of agricultural communities where a drought, adverse crop conditions or adverse weather could hit the cash flow of a farmer. The Commonwealth Development Bank was there for a number of years to actually provide some certainty and stability for rural communities. I'm looking at an article headed 'The role of the Development Bank in rural credit' by Warren D McDonald. It was from a talk given to the Victorian branch of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society in July 1960, when the Commonwealth Development Bank had just been established. The sorts of things that Mr McDonald discusses in that article are very much the sorts of issues that are being raised here. There are agricultural businesses that can't get finance through conventional means but can still turn a profit and be a good investment, but commercial banks, for whatever reason, won't provide finance because of the boom-bust nature of regional businesses of agricultural endeavour. That bank was wound down—I think by the Keating government in the early 1990s—which was a mistake. This bill establishes the Regional Investment Corporation, which has many shades of the Commonwealth Development Bank. It will deliver up to $2 billion of Commonwealth farm business concessional loans and the $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It will streamline the administration of farm business loans and deliver national consistency in ensuring that loans prudently and speedily assist farmers in need. The benefit of this, given the difficulty that agriculture businesses have in getting finance, will be considerable. There obviously need to be appropriate transparency and accountability mechanisms within this bill—that is important. As my colleague in the House of Representatives, the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, touched on during the second reading debate, we are supportive of the measures in this bill to give control of the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme to the Regional Investment Corporation. This could have been done without legislation, but it is much better that it have a legislative framework: it is something we can build from. The Australian Labor Party under the Rudd-Gillard governments had legislation for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and for ARENA. They were about providing support for clean energy on the basis that conventional finance might not be supportive or give that certainty of investment but clean energy would still make money in the long term, so it would not cost taxpayers any money. The CEFC and ARENA would provide that finance. I see the Regional Investment Corporation as being consistent with the principles of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and, before that, the Commonwealth Development Bank. I will touch on an issue that I have been discussing with the government. I support water infrastructure projects, providing, of course, they do not in any way impact on the Water Act, on the sustainable diversion limits or on the framework of the Water Act. That is something that is quite axiomatic. I don't think there's any disagreement from the government. We have a Water Act. It's very important that there be consistency of purpose and that any water infrastructure projects do not in any way impact adversely on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's something that was fought hard for, that has been dealt with through COAG and that basin states have signed up to. I'm having discussions with the government to ensure that there are appropriate and clear safeguards to make it abundantly clear that the Water Act has a paramount role. The government's argument might be that it would in any event, because it can't be trammelled by this legislation, but it would give me and, maybe, many others comfort that we have consistency of purpose, so that any water infrastructure projects do not in any way impact on the Water Act. I think that's something that Senator Ruston and the government generally do not take issue with. There is some scope for some greater clarity in relation to that. So in those terms I indicate that I and my colleagues are supportive of the second reading of this bill being passed. We believe that this will do a lot of good in regional communities around the nation. It will mean that farmers who couldn't get loans from the big four banks or other banks can get loans. The loans will still be paid back. They won't cost taxpayers any money but will kickstart regional communities, which will mean that rural communities will be able to thrive and be more viable. There are committee stage amendments from the Labor Party that will make all these measures disallowable instruments. I have serious concerns about that but will talk about that later. My colleagues and I support the second reading stage of this bill. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Trade with Japan, INPEX Ichthys LNG Project 105 21:50 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia The relationship between Australia and Japan is our closest and most mature in Asia, so it's fundamentally important for our shared strategic and economic interests that we continue to strengthen and improve that relationship. This relationship is underpinned by a shared commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as common approaches to international security. Australia's stability in the business and investment environments makes us a critical supplier of minerals and energy, as well as high-quality food products, to Japan. In 2015-16, Japan was Australia's largest trading partner and second-largest export market. Japan was also Australia's second-largest inbound direct foreign investor in 2015. Two-way trade between Australia and Japan is now worth over $60 billion. Japan has fewer natural resources and, as such, the Japanese economy faces significant challenges, especially in its energy policy. To address these challenges, the Japanese government is encouraging firms to secure stable energy and commodity supplies through increased investment in overseas natural resources. Australia is, of course, a major beneficiary of this investment. In August, I—along with my WA Liberal colleague the member for Durack, Melissa Price, and other coalition MPs and senators—was delighted to welcome to parliament Mr Hitoshi Okawa from INPEX; ACIL Allen's executive director, John Nicolaou; and the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr James Pearson, to discuss how the Japanese-owned INPEX LNG project will benefit the economies of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Located 220 kilometres off the northern Western Australian coastline, the project represents something quite remarkable: the largest discovery of hydrocarbon liquids in Australia in the last 40 years. It also represents the largest Japanese investment ever made in Australia, valued at US$34 billion, which is more than $43 billion in Australian terms. The INPEX LNG project is currently in construction and is ranked among the most significant oil and gas projects in the world. The project is effectively three megaprojects rolled into one, involving some of the largest offshore facilities in the industry, a state-of-the-art onshore processing facility and an 890-kilometre pipeline. The project will be operational for at least 40 years and will generate more than $195 billion in exports for Australia, which will be greater than the total exports from Tasmania in 2015-16 and greater than all Australian total wheat exports in the period 2014-15. At peak production, the economic output is forecast to be $4½ billion per annum, before slowly reducing to a low of $1.4 billion by 2050, in line with the lower levels of production expected towards the end of the project's life. The project is expected to double the Northern Territory's exports, injecting $118 billion, or 15 per cent, into the economy between 2012 and 2050. My home state of Western Australia is likely to see a $75 billion boost to our economy over the same period. This will provide a boost in real incomes in WA of $34 billion, with the Territorians also expected to see a boost in real incomes of $14 billion. Real incomes across the rest of Australia are expected to be boosted by $43 billion as a result of the flow-on impact from higher taxation payments. This includes an estimated $73 billion in taxation revenue to respective governments at $1.9 billion per year. At peak production, annual taxation receipts generated from the project are estimated to rise to $3½ billion. The biggest source of taxation payments from the project will be through the form of company taxation, which is forecast to rise rapidly to $2.1 billion during peak production. The project is estimated to generate $20 million in payroll taxation to Western Australia and $5 million to the Northern Territory. GST collections are estimated at an average of $269 million per annum, of which 78 per cent will be collected in WA and the remaining 22 per cent in the Northern Territory. Of course, if the draft recommendations from the Productivity Commission review into horizontal fiscal equalisation are given their head, those GST collections and revenues back to Western Australia will be significantly larger. One can only hope. Once operational, the local workforce will see significant growth, with 600 jobs created on average per annum over 40 years in the Northern Territory and 1,100 jobs created on average per annum in the same period to support activities in Perth, the Kimberley and offshore. Broome, in the far north of my home state of Western Australia, is an important supply hub for the Ichthys LNG Project's offshore works, including workforce helicopter transfers and logistics support. During the current phase, project vessels are expected to make up to seven visits per week to the port of Broome for service and supplies. A dedicated INPEX Toll Mermaid logistics base has been established close to the port of Broome to support the project’s drilling program. INPEX has contracted Bristow Helicopters to move its offshore workers between Broome and the gas field, where two rigs are drilling 20 production wells, and more than 30,000 tonnes of equipment is being installed on the seabed. Eventually, up to 100 workers may be transported to the field each day, with the same number travelling back to Broome on return flights. The project is also providing significant social, cultural and economic benefits to many local Kimberley communities, with INPEX providing support in areas such as arts and culture, youth, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander initiatives and education. In April 2009, INPEX signed an agreement with the local Aboriginal corporation for the long-term management of the local airport, which is located on the Dampier Peninsula, 185 kilometres north of Broome. As part of INPEX's commitment to supporting sustainable Indigenous economic development, this agreement provides the community with a dedicated sustainable income stream, together with training and employment opportunities. The agreement guarantees access to the airport for emergency evacuation from the Browse Basin fields, greatly improving safety for offshore rig workers. This is particularly important during natural disasters like cyclones. In partnership with the Western Australia government, INPEX undertook a major upgrade of the airport, including resealing the airstrip, expanding fuel facilities and installing shelters and an automated weather station. These upgrades will also benefit other users of the airport, including the community, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, tourism operators, private users and other Browse Basin oil and gas operators. For the local Indigenous community, this project provides real options for managing their own future and ensuring the continuation of Indigenous community services. The INPEX LNG project is a great bright light for the economies of both Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and we wish them the greatest of success. Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum 106 21:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania This evening I rise to speak on the recent Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum, held in Honiara on the Solomon Islands. Sixty women from 17 Pacific parliaments came together for the fifth Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum. Women attended from as far away as Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Tonga and Niue. Forum participants included female presiding officers, deputy presiding officers, ministers, party leaders, members of parliament, former and potential electorate candidates and parliamentary staff, as well as 18 observing members of the Solomon Islands Young Women's Parliamentary Group. I was honoured to attend again after attending previous forums. The annual forum is a crucial part of the Australian government's Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development initiative, a 10-year, $320 million program launched by the former Labor government in 2012. With women's representation in Pacific parliaments being the lowest in the world, it is unimaginably hard for a woman to be elected in a Pacific island country, let alone cope with the work and stress once elected. There are cultural and tribal expectations that parliamentarians will provide significant support, both emotional and monetary, to home communities and extended families, as well as expectations that politicians always show strength. With little to no support network around them, this is immensely tiring and a personally challenging endeavour. Many of these women parliamentarians are the only woman in their parliament, or if they're lucky there might be a small group. Constantly, as the only woman in their parliament, they carry an extra burden but also a privilege of trying to represent both their constituency and the views of 50 per cent of their entire country. Contrast that to the Australian Senate, where in the Labor Party over half of our senators are women and women comprise around 40 per cent of total senators. As such, the annual Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum is a critical opportunity for women across the Pacific to come together, let their guard down, share inspirations and success stories and provide much-needed support to each other. I have met many of the women at previous forums, and the warm smiles on arrival continued across the week with stories of family, the failings of their parliaments and, of course, the wins that we all achieve for our local communities. In particular, it was wonderful to see Senators Senior and Inabo from Palau, Speaker Niki Rattle, Selina Napa and Aunty Mau Munokoa from the Cook Islands. Through the partnership, Senators Senior and Inabo visited Australia a few years ago, and I was lucky enough to host them in Tasmania. Also, through the partnership, the Cook Islands has taken inspiration from other Pacific countries and recently passed a family protection and support bill and a harassment bill to better ensure women and children are protected from violence both at home and in public. This is a crucial reform as violence amongst women is at endemic levels in Pacific countries. In the Cook Islands, a 2014 Ministry of Health survey found that one in three women experiences violence by a male partner or male family member in their lifetime, while one in 10 experiences such violence while pregnant. Of those, only 10 per cent of survivors turn to counsellors or health professionals and only 40 per cent report the incident to police. In the Solomon Islands, a 2009 family health and support survey found that 64 per cent of women aged 15 to 49 experienced intimate partner violence, and 73 per cent of Solomon Islanders, men and women alike, believe that violence against women is justifiable. Only one-third of survivors told anyone about the violence and less than 20 per cent sought help from formal services. The Solomon Islands government passed its Family Protection Act in 2014 and opened its gender based violence health clinic, Seif Ples, in the same year. After a request from Senator Moore, on our final morning in Honiara a small group of us were privileged to visit Seif Ples and meet the dedicated medical staff and volunteers who care for women and children who are escaping family violence. As we entered through the large, heavy fence and drove down the long driveway, the small centre had a strong sense of peacefulness amongst the chaos of Honiara, which is bulging at its seams with people. The small centre has only one bunk bed for survivors and a small demountable hut which houses its medical team. We talked to the staff and volunteers about the vital service they provide and, with the utmost humility—which so defines Solomon Islanders—they shared how this small centre and its partners in the police, the Ministry of Health and non-government organisations are slowly changing attitudes toward gender based violence, and making a real difference. Seif Ples is a unique, multi-sectoral model combining gender based violence services under one roof. Survivors can go there 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and find refuge and safety while staff at the centre arrange for medical care and onward referral in a sensitised environment. Critically, with the advent of mobile phones across the Pacific, the volunteers staff a 24-hour referral hotline which receives thousands of phone calls a year. Despite three years of operations of Seif Ples and three years of the Family Protection Act, there remain daily challenges for resourcing and improving community awareness. The bold steps taken by the Solomon Islands in establishing the centre are an inspiration for others right across the region. One lunch break during the forum I met with Mary Elizabeth 'MJ' Ramosaea from MJ Enterprises, a small business in Honiara which makes calico stay-free kits that enable Solomon Islands women to manage their menstruation hygienically and with dignity. For many women and girls, particularly in rural and isolated areas, there is no choice but to use whatever is available to manage their menstruation. There are also cultural traditions associated with menstruation where women are shunned during their periods. The kit includes two cloth shields, liners, bags and soap. As well as the kits, MJ provides high-quality information services to ensure that women and girls are empowered to make informed decisions about how they manage their menstruation. The kits are hand sewn by women in Honiara and support three women working full-time and three others in associated small businesses. It is a tremendous social enterprise and I commend MJ and her team for starting such an important service that will enable women and girls to go to school, go to work and participate in daily life with dignity. It's a pleasure to report to the Senate the positive sentiment towards Australia and the Australian government for the support for the Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development initiative. In the recent election results in Papua New Guinea, despite 167 women contesting 111 seats, no women were elected. In contrast, at last year's Samoan elections, five women were elected, four through constituencies and one further to meet the 10 per cent quota introduced in 2013. All Samoan politicians should be commended for their passage of the quota, which is a strong template for the region. Halfway through the 10-year program it is vital that we redouble our efforts to improve women's political and economic participation, and make communities and homes safer—to inspire women from across the Pacific to stand for election and equip them with the support and the tools to win. The forum has provided a clear platform to raise the issues of women in the Pacific and to ensure that women's voices, particularly in leadership, are heard at home and overseas. I took heart from the message from Papua New Guineans who said that, in politics, if you don't succeed the first time, you don't give up. Women who run for parliament or who enter private enterprise across the Pacific demonstrate enormous resilience, overcoming enormous cultural barriers and often ending up alone in parliament. Australia can play our part with guidance, support and finances. With ongoing engagement outside the formalities of the forum we will see more women elected to parliaments of the Pacific, and we will see the explicit criminalisation of domestic violence and the resources to support survivors and to catch perpetrators. We will see more support for female hygiene products so that cultural traditions of beating, abusing or shunning women who are on their period are shown as yesterday's actions, which cannot be tolerated. I thank the team here in the Australian parliament's Parliamentary Skills Centre and their partners in the Solomon Islands parliament for their work to bring so many women together from across the region for such a positive forum. And I thank the Australian High Commissioner's staff, both Australians and Solomon Islanders, for their hospitality and generosity. Thank you. Myanmar 108 22:07 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales Recently in Sydney I met members of the Rohingya community. Their sadness was immense. One man told me that he had just heard that both his brother and his father had been killed. Others were desperate for news of their family and loved ones. Today in this parliament, representatives of the majority of aid groups operating in and around Myanmar provided briefings to MPs. They described an extraordinary situation, a most critical humanitarian emergency that requires a rapid and generous response from the Australian government. More organisations and more countries need to call urgently for an end to the violence and for the right of the Rohingyas to return to their homes and their land. And more humanitarian aid is needed. A UN report released last week has confirmed the brutal attacks against Rohingya in the north of Myanmar's Rakhine state to have been well organised, coordinated and systematic. This report highlights why the Australian government must take a moral stand and defend the rights of the Rohingya people. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report states: Credible information indicates that the Myanmar security forces purposely destroyed the property of the Rohingyas, targeting their houses, fields, food-stocks, crops, livestock and even trees, to render the possibility of the Rohingya returning to normal lives and livelihoods in the future in northern Rakhine almost impossible. They used a strategy—and this is also from the report: … to “instil deep and widespread fear and trauma – physical, emotional and psychological” among the Rohingya population. The report, by a team from the UN human rights office who met with the newly arrived Rohingya in Cox's Bazar from 14 to 24 September this year, confirmed that human rights violations committed against the Rohingya population were carried out by Myanmar security forces, often in concert with armed Rakhine Buddhist individuals. The new report is based on some 65 interviews with individuals and groups. These reports were corroborated by other witnesses from NGOs and Bangladeshi staff. I was particularly disturbed to read that the educated in the Rohingya society, such as teachers, businesspeople and religious and community leaders—people with influence—have been targeted in an effort to diminish Rohingya history, culture and knowledge. In a statement made on 19 September, Aung San Suu Kyi claimed that the Myanmar security forces have not conducted any further clearance operations since 5 September. However, on 17 September, the UN team was able to identify columns of smoke rising above the Naf River in northern Rakhine state. Furthermore, satellite imagery indicates that the burning of villages continued weeks after 5 September. Statements from the Bangladeshi border guards' representatives and other actors close to the border also indicate that explosions, shootings and burnings were heard and seen after 5 September. Among many shocking reports, details of extreme sexual violence stand out for their brutality. Witness statements indicate that some previously abducted girls returned with vaginal bleeding which continued for days. One statement indicated that a knife was used during a gang rape of a female victim. Another statement received by an extremely credible source referred to a woman whose stomach was slit open after she was raped. Witnesses stated that her unborn baby was killed by the alleged perpetrator with a knife, and that her nipples were cut off. I give these shocking details because, sadly, rape continues to be a weapon of war, and we need to speak out about it. Personnel in refugee clinics and local hospitals corroborated the information that female Rohingya victims were being treated by their medical staff for injuries received through sexual and gender based violence. At the briefing with aid groups today, we were informed that 536,000 Rohingyas have fled Myanmar in recent weeks. All up, aid organisations are assisting 1.2 million people. These are the Rohingyas who have fled—about half a million in recent weeks—and the hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas who are already in parts of Bangladesh around the border, and then the impacted communities. All up, of these 1.2 million, about 80 per cent are women and very young children. On top of this, the United Nations human rights office is gravely concerned for the safety of thousands of Rohingyas who remain in northern Rakhine state, amid reports that the violence is still ongoing. So far, humanitarian and human rights workers and the media have been denied access to the area. I was also disturbed, in the context of this violence—and you start to wonder why it is occurring—to learn that Myanmar recently adopted a new law which is very relevant to why the crimes against humanity are occurring. The new law stipulates that land that has been burnt becomes government-managed land. I have just given the details from the United Nations report that has information about the imagery from satellites showing the extent of that burning. Half of the Rohingya villages in the north of Rakhine have been burnt. The burnt land is clearly on its way to being used in some way. And what you then find out is that economic zones are being established in this area. Three economic zones already exist on land where Rohingyas had lived in the past. Now there is a plan for another economic zone, which could well explain the reason for one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. So what we are seeing is ruthless ethnic cleansing. The United Nations Secretary-General and many others have described it in that way. The French President has called it genocide. Clearly, that is what is occurring. And now we see that there is a profit motive here. The pattern is that the economic zone is being formed, and it is being formed on the basis of this extreme violence perpetrated against Rohingyas, who then see their land cleared. So the Australian government needs a comprehensive response here. Protection needs to be at the centre of the response. The government should also urge the UNHCR to coordinate a comprehensive protection assessment and response across the whole refugee population. I also believe the Australian government needs to look beyond the immediate needs and support and invest in development of a longer term refugee response considering the high likelihood that this will become a massive, protracted refugee crisis. We clearly need to look to the long term here as well as assisting the people to relieve their suffering and their hunger right at the moment. Also, the government can play a significant role by championing a long-term political and durable solution for Rohingya refugees to enable their safe and voluntary return to Myanmar. There are many reasons that the Australian government needs to become involved here. One of the things that was also raised at the briefings today was that our government should urge the United Nations to follow its human rights up-front mechanism and specifically urge the United Nations to put in place an effective, strong and principled country team. Fantastic work has been done by so many of these aid organisations. They now need the backing of the Australian government. I spoke about the economic zones. I want to give a little bit more detail because I find it deeply alarming that these zones can be built on land where once these Rohingyas lived—and, now that they have lost it, they have been totally alienated because of this new law that 'burnt land is government land'. On 1 September the Burmese government announced that the construction of the Maungdaw economic zone would start when the current situation in the area has calmed down. I understand it could start quite soon. The government has selected land as a proposed location for this economic zone. It will host garment factories, refrigeration units for fish, a fuel station and commodity and industrial showrooms. Also, offshore oil and gas companies are very interested in this area. I understand that an Australian company, Woodside Energy, is already operating there. Clearly we need to look at this very closely. Is it appropriate that Australian companies, or any companies, are operating on land where there has been ethnic cleansing? There needs to be a lot more work done here to ensure that there is a clear, solid humanitarian response and long-term assistance to resolve this situation. Schools 109 22:17 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Tonight I rise to speak about the important role chaplains play in young Australian lives in schools, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. All too often in this place, as we have just heard from Senator Rhiannon, we focus on things that are sad or tragic and are not going well. But the School Chaplaincy Program, I'm delighted to say, is a wonderful program and I thought it was worthy of sharing with everyone in this place tonight. These may be cliches, but I think it's still true that young people in our nation are the future and it takes a village to raise a child. I believe one of the most important things we can do in this place for young Australians is to provide them with the guidance they need and support through their schools and communities to realise their full potential and become resilient, engaged and compassionate people. But many children, unfortunately, don't always get that support through their own families or their extended families. And even the strongest of families sometimes need somebody to reach out and provide guidance and support. As we in this place all know and talk about a lot, quality education is important for students so that they leave school with the knowledge and skills to pursue their passions and goals and contribute to our nation and also to their own families in the 21st century. But, as we in this place all know, a good school experience is so much more than books and academic learning. From my own schooling experience and also from now engaging with many schools across my state, I know that the most successful schools are the ones that graduate compassionate and civic-minded students who have those attributes over and above their academic standards. The best schools teach students to engage with their community but also to engage with our wonderful democracy. Many parents and schools teach students to think critically, to challenge their own biases and also, importantly, to be resilient. In today's society it has never been more important that students are provided the opportunity to develop these qualities, compassion and resilience. Sadly, many students in their own homes are not given the opportunity to develop these life skills, and they do require guidance and support throughout their education in their time in our schools. This is where I have seen firsthand, and I believe, chaplains make a huge difference. Chaplains are an invaluable asset to our young people, their futures and their families. Nowhere is this more so than in my home state of Western Australia. Currently, there are 384 chaplains operating in government, Catholic and independent schools in Western Australia. Schools and parents of students are speaking with their feet, because this has upped significantly from 361 last year. Again, they're providing an amazing support. YouthCARE alone has 202 federally-funded chaplains in 158 primary schools and 64 public secondary schools in Western Australia. Just last month I was honoured to address these chaplains at a YouthCARE chaplains conference and hear some of their stories and some of the amazing work that they do. YouthCARE received just over $5 million from the federal government under the National School Chaplaincy Program this year. What have taxpayers, families and students gotten for this relatively modest investment? So far this year the chaplains have had 50,000 individual conversations with students. Twenty thousand of these conversations and sessions were with staff members, and more than 13,000 engagement and support sessions were for parents and children's carers. In addition to that, over 200,000 meals have been served at breakfast clubs, and 129,000 Western Australian students have attended lunchtime groups. YouthCARE chaplains, in addition to that, have run well over 1,400 social, emotional and physical programs, and 711 community and mentoring programs. That is, indeed, a mighty service for $5 million of Commonwealth investment in the future of our children. Together chaplains make a significant contribution to school communities right across our state. I believe these benefits will have long-term implications for these students and their families and their emotional and physical wellbeing. These chaplains do, unquestionably, make a wonderful contribution to providing the best possible start to life for our children—often the children who don't get that support at home and need that extra guidance, support and counselling to get them through their school years. I'd like to thank all of those chaplains for the amazing work they do for our community, and I thank the federal government for its support in this chaplaincy program. We get a huge return on investment in the future of our children, and long may it continue. Thank you. Senate adjourned at 22:23 DOCUMENTS 110 DOCUMENTS Tabling 110 Tabling 116 COMMITTEES 119 COMMITTEES Government Response to Report 119 Report 125