2018-05-08 45 1 6 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Centre Alliance 1 12:01 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the political party status of myself and Senator Patrick. Leave granted. Senator GRIFF 76760 I wish to inform the Senate that on 6 April the Nick Xenophon Team passed a resolution to change its name forthwith to Centre Alliance. The Australian Electoral Commission has completed its initial consideration of the name change and has approved publication of the notice of application, which appeared in major newspapers yesterday. BILLS 1 BILLS Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018, Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 1

Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018

Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017

In Committee 1 12:02): The CHAIR ( 112096 The committee is considering the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australian Fund) Bill 2018, as amended, and the amendment on sheet 8381 moved by Senator Anning. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 12:02 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland I seek leave to withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 8381, standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator ANNING 273829 I withdraw my amendment. The CHAIR: I am in the hands of the committee. 12:03 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I thought there was a Greens' amendment ready to come forward. I'm not sure if that's the case. The CHAIR: I am in the hands of the committee. I can put the question on the bill. Senator CAMERON AI6 I also thought that there was a Centre Alliance—what does that mean?—amendment before the Senate. I'm not sure where we go. The opposition doesn't have any further amendments. We do have a view on what we've seen from the Greens in terms of their amendment and that from Centre Alliance. So, if one of them wants to speak to those, we are happy to respond. 12:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I've obviously circulated the Greens' amendments. Is it the case that all these other amendments have been dealt with? The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, my understanding is that the opposition's amendments on sheet 8372 were agreed to on 15 February. That leaves us with the amendments that have been circulated: one from Centre Alliance and one from the Australian Greens. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The others have been withdrawn, have they? The CHAIR: There's one that's just been withdrawn by Senator Anning. 12:05 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8394, to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "3", substitute "4". (2)Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must: (a) start as soon as practicable after 18 months after Royal Assent; and (b) be completed within 6 months. (3) The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister. (5) The report is not a legislative instrument. Before I speak on the substance of the amendments, I'd like to make the point that there is still a long way to go to fix Australia's vocational education and training system. We don't have to look any further than the appalling failures we saw at TAFE SA last year to know that this sector needs serious reform. These bills do not represent that reform. I need to make that clear. The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 and the accompanying Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 direct sorely needed money towards training and streamline the system for employer-sponsored visas but do nothing for the structural problems affecting the sector. Professor John Buchanan, from the University of Sydney Business School, put the problem in a nutshell earlier this year when he told the Senate inquiry into vocational education and training in South Australia that the national VET system was too fragmented and disconnected from the labour market. He made the damning report that TAFE 'is a rare asset' that consecutive Commonwealth governments have slowly eroded. Again to quote Professor Buchanan: Australia's vocational education system used to be the envy of the English-speaking world. We've done a very good job of trashing a great asset. It is obvious that the Skilling Australians Fund levy is not perfect. It will not in any way fix our broken system, but it is a dedicated pool of funds, an estimated $1.2 billion over four years, going towards 300,000 apprentices and traineeships. Centre Alliance will not stand in the way of that. I note that the university sector is unhappy to be paying the levy, calling it a tax on knowledge. Universities rely on temporary skilled visas to import talent and do already invest in skilling Australians. They will pay the levy but will, in the main, not be able to draw down on it. I do have sympathy for their argument. I note that the Greens have proposed an amendment to exempt universities and RTOs from paying that levy. However, it is apparent that this exemption will not get through, as there is no appetite amongst the major parties to reduce the forecast $1.2 billion the levy will collect for apprenticeships and traineeships. I understand that too. At a time when the VET sector needs a boost as well as serious reform, we don't want to whittle down any funds going towards apprentices and trainees. More to the point, we know there are other groups that are concerned about the impact of this levy, but it's not clear whether their fears will come to pass. For instance, we know there is some concern amongst trade trainers that the levy might have the perverse effect of discouraging employers from taking on apprentices. Currently they need to demonstrate that they put a percentage of their payroll into training in order to be able to sponsor a foreign worker. Under this reform, they will just pay the $1,200 fee for each visa, or $1,800 if we are talking about larger employers. Simply put, there may be adverse impacts, but we can't be sure of how deep or where they might bite. For that reason, we have proposed an amendment for a review of the legislation in 18 months, to look at any unintended consequences on employers paying the levy. Allowing the levy to operate for a year before reviewing its operation should provide better information through which to fine-tune the program. In this instance, I think it will be a better approach than trying to pick winners and losers at the outset, through exemptions. For that reason, I urge fellow senators to support our amendment. 12:09 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting this amendment. The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 is now about 12 months old. It was announced in the last budget, and here we are with another budget tonight and we don't have any agreement. This government has been incapable of getting any agreement with any of the state governments to actually implement their Skilling Australians Fund even after many discussions with the states. This is a government that is completely out of touch with vocational education and training. This is a government that would rather give over $2 million to their mates in Family First to support their pet project, which will be a failed experiment in South Australia, instead of supporting the TAFE system. I think we've all watched in horror what's happened to the TAFE system—the TAFE system that's so important to kids and communities, the TAFE system that gets young people into training and education. We've watched in horror the cuts that this government has implemented in the whole vocational education and training system. They are totally supportive of a competitive model in the vocational education system, the competitive model that gave us Careers Australia. I'm not sure if Senator Griff has actually caught up with the outcome of what he described as the 'appalling failures' of TAFE SA. There were no appalling failures in TAFE SA compared to the failures and the appalling conduct and the rip-offs that took place in the private sector. The problem that TAFE SA found themselves in was that their funding had been cut and that their courses, that were actually allowing them to fund other courses, were going to the private sector—the easily delivered courses were going to the private sector—and that was causing a problem for TAFE SA to continue providing the skills and training that were required. It's okay to stand up here and attack TAFE South Australia for political purposes, but that is gone; that's fixed. It was never a big problem. It was an absolute beat-up. When we had the hearing, we soon found out that the big problem was not with TAFE SA but with companies like Careers Australia being given more funding. One private company was getting more funding than the whole of TAFE SA. Six hundred million dollars was given to Careers Australia, who then delivered about $40 million of payouts to the directors and then went bust, leaving thousands of kids, thousands of young Australians, with no capacity to complete their apprenticeships and no capacity to complete their training. Instead of trying to make some pathetic political point on TAFE SA, Senator Griff, maybe you should look at the real problems with the vocational educational system. Maybe you should look at the privatisation problems that are in the system. Maybe you should look at the problems that competition policy has delivered in this system. You might have a look at the rip-offs that the private sector engaged in in that system. What we see in this country is the big banks ripping off their customers, and we see private vocational education providers ripping off young Australians. It's about time this stopped. And it's about time we concentrated on doing the right thing by the TAFE system, by the skills system, by the vocational education system in this country. I'm one of the few people here who has actually engaged in the TAFE system. I was trained in the equivalent of the TAFE system in Scotland. That system allowed me to get an apprenticeship, to come to Australia, to look after my family through my trade, and to eventually get into the trade union movement and end up a senator. That's what my trade gave me. And that opportunity should still be there for young Australians—to get a trade, to get skills in the new areas that are emerging, to be able to take their skills around the world, and to have access to a decent vocational educational and training system. We support these amendments, but I would hope that your group actually focuses on the key issues that are the problem—that is, the privatisation that's taking place, the failure of competition policy in the VET system and the rip-offs that took place by private providers. Those things have been the problem. The Skilling Australians Fund has now been there for 12 months but has still not been delivered. Many businesspeople and many employer organisations are very concerned that the payments system, totally funding the VET system through the visa system, is unsustainable in the long term. Many of the experts and academics that have looked at it say, 'This is a crazy proposition.' We will support the bill because we need funding in the VET system. If the bill doesn't go through, there's no funding in the VET system. But there's an obligation on this rabble of a government to actually get deals put in place to make this a reality. Twelve months on, they haven't been able to do it. This was announced in the last budget. We've got another budget coming up tonight, and this incompetent government has been unable to deliver on what it announced 12 months ago. We take the view that the amendments are reasonable. We will accept the amendments. I am happy to sit and talk to Senator Griff and his team about exactly what the problems are in the VET system and where we want to go. If we are fortunate enough to be elected at the next election, we will have a comprehensive analysis and review of the VET system and we will look at the issues that are required to be fixed to make sure that young Australians can get apprenticeships and traineeships, to make sure that their skills are recognised across the country and to make sure that they can articulate through the VET system into the university system. These are the issues that are important. They are important for Australian skills, important for our engineering base, important for our aged-care base and important for the NDIS. These are all areas that are so essential in making sure that we can look after people in this country and that we can compete domestically and internationally. I've said before that you've only got to look at some of the OECD reports to see that we do not have the skills and capacity to compete in global value chains. We are not doing it. We are failing. After nearly five years of this government, nothing has improved. It's all been this ideological approach that competition policy will fix it, that privatisation will fix it, that we'll fix it by screwing young workers so that they have to make a contribution to the payments. I did my apprenticeship almost half a century ago. I had better conditions half a century ago as an apprentice fitter and machinist than some of our apprentices have got now. My boss had to pay my travel to and from tech. My boss had to pay the fees at tech. All the Business Council of Australia want to do is get their hands on $80 billion worth of taxpayers' money, but they don't want to pay for their apprentices and their trainees to get their skills. It's a completely different view in Germany. The employers in Germany understand that training and skills are an investment for their company in the future and an investment for the individuals in their future. They take a completely different view from the troglodyte approach of the coalition and the troglodyte approach of the Business Council of Australia. It's about time they started thinking about the skills we need to make sure that our young people have an opportunity for a trade or a traineeship, that they have an opportunity to build their life with high skills and decent wages. Instead of cutting penalty rates, instead of attacking the trade union movement, how about concentrating on the real issues of importance? We probably won't see any of that in the budget tonight, because the key issue in the budget tonight won't be about skills. It won't be about training. It'll be about handing $80 billion to big business in this country, and $17 billion to the banks. How ridiculous is that. That's the plan that Malcolm Turnbull has. That's the plan that the coalition has. It's not a plan about the things that make a difference. It's not about looking after young people. It's not about looking after apprentices. It's about simply handing money over to the people that fund coalition election campaigns: the finance sector and the big banks. People should understand that when they see the budget tonight. The government will probably have nothing positive to say about skills, because, as I've indicated, it's 12 months since the last budget, when they announced the Skilling Australians Fund, and businesses themselves are saying, 'We don't think this will work. We don't know that the money is going to come in on the visas to make sure the funding is there.' That's why Labor have said we will not rely simply on visas to make sure we have a decent vocational education system in this country. We will make sure that we have a proper analysis of the VET system and make sure that young Australians have that opportunity—the opportunity that I had almost a century ago to get an apprenticeship, come to Australia and ply my skills in Australia. I thought Australia got a good deal when they brought me here. Some of my bosses didn't think so when I became a trade unionist, looking after working people. Young people should have an opportunity to get a trade. Young people should have an alternative to the university system. VET is an alternative pathway, and this government has neglected it. All the government has ever wanted to do is look after its mates and get a vote from Family First in South Australia. The government's position on skills and training has been an absolute disgrace. During National Skills Week last year, where was the Minister for Education and Training? The minister was in India, praising the education and skills system in India. He wasn't here doing anything about education skills and TAFE in this country. TAFE is an absolutely iconic organisation in this country. It's an organisation that gives young people an opportunity to get a trade. It's an organisation that allows people in rural and regional Australia to get access to skills training. Labor will make a difference. If we are fortunate enough to be elected, we will fix this VET system. We will make sure we've got a strong TAFE system. We will make sure that young people have an opportunity to actually get a skill that can see them, and their families, through for the rest of their lives; that they've got ongoing training; and that the costs are not continually piling up—cost transfers, costs getting pushed from the employer and from government back onto the individual young apprentice or trainee. So we support these amendments. We've got the same concerns about this bill, but we need this bill to go through to make sure that there is a VET system that continues in the short term. In the longer term, Labor would completely review the system and make sure it works for young Australians and for everyone that wants to get the skills—to make sure we've got the skills in this country to allow us to compete internationally, make sure we build the new skills for the future and make sure we've got the funding for it. This bill doesn't do it completely, but we must accept that this bill goes through. That's why we will accept these amendments. We will support these amendments, but we still think there is lots more work to be done in the VET system. 12:24 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I indicate on behalf of the government that we won't be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Griff. A review of the Skilling Australians Fund and levy may be of limited value in terms of the proposed 18-month time frame. Any such review would be best contained outside of the bill itself. The fund will be managed through a new multi-year project-based national partnership agreement with the state and territory governments. Pursuing a review of the levy after only 18 months could jeopardise the certainty in the agreement for the state and territory projects and the certainty provided to employers in the states. A review of the agreement will be completed 12 months prior to its expiry, and the review is prescribed in the agreement. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8394, moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:29]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE Watt, M 32 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hanson, P Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 5 PAIRS Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Gallagher, KR Sinodinos, A Polley, H O'Sullivan, B Ryan, SM Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P Cormann, M

Question agreed to.

 12:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8387: (1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 6), after section 140ZM, insert: 140ZMA Exemption for higher education providers and registered training organisations Despite section 140ZM, the following are not liable to pay nomination training contribution charge: (a) higher education providers (within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003); (b) registered training organisations (within the meaning of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011). This amendment, as circulated by the Greens, deals with the issue of the tax on knowledge, which is effectively part of what this bill does. The government are obsessed with cuts to higher education institutions. They're doing it over and over again. We've got another bill listed for debate this week which will make it even harder for university students to pay back their HECS debts. We wait with bated breath as to what will be in the budget tonight in relation to further cuts to our higher education institutions. This bill just shuffles money from one part of the education sector to another. It effectively amounts to a $15 million a year cut to universities. The Greens amendment that I have moved exempts universities and registered training organisations from the Skilling Australians Fund charge. It does so because the Skilling Australians Fund is supposed to be about paying to train Australians to fill skills shortages. There's no economic rationale for charging trainers to fund trainers. Australia has no monopoly on world-class educators and researchers. We compete with the rest of the world for the best and brightest to create our own best and brightest. This bill, if it goes through unamended, will work against Australia's ability to do that. If we're going to make that harder, we're going to be short-changing ourselves. I recognise that the exemption will marginally reduce the value of the fund itself. That is self-evident. Let's ensure that we can protect our universities from even more cuts by ensuring that they are exempt in this way. If the argument that the government put up for voting against this amendment is that the fund will not adequately fund skills training, then they should put more money into the fund. They should stop short-changing our higher education institutions and training providers. The Skilling Australians Fund would compel any employer, including universities, to pay $1,800 for every overseas employee coming to Australia on a temporary skilled visa. If it applies to universities, it will amount to a $15 million a year cut, as previously mentioned. The money that trainers pay and that comes back to trainers is churn and cost with no economic benefit. This is just more of the government's obsession with cuts, cuts, cuts to education. It is effectively introducing a tax on a base that is then handed back to the same base. It is charging on the way in and forcing them to pay on the way out. It just doesn't make economic sense. By exempting universities, as this amendment does, trainers would be left better off. By including them, as this bill currently does, unamended, our training institutions and our trainers will be left worse off. I urge the Senate to support this commonsense amendment to improve the legislation in this way. The Greens will support the legislation, but we just don't see sense in making universities pay for something that ultimately, at the end of the day, just ends up being churn and cost with no benefit—cuts, cuts, cuts. This government is obsessed with making it harder for our universities. 12:36 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Labor will not be supporting the Greens amendment. I think if you looked at what Senator Hanson-Young said you would probably try to identify areas where you could make cuts in expenditure in the university system. I just looked at it, and the one I would note is that Australia's 38 public university vice-chancellors were paid an average of $890,000 in 2016, and 12 of them earned more than $1 million. The best-paid vice-chancellor was Sydney University professor Michael Spence, who received $1.4 million after a 56 per cent increase over five years. If there are ways of saving money for the universities, how about looking there? They must be the highest-paid vice-chancellors of universities in the world. I've got some sympathy for the argument about funding for universities, but give us a break. I mean, this is just outrageous. On the amendment that has been moved, these issues were not recommended by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry. And I have to say, Senator Hanson-Young, we hadn't seen this amendment. It came in late—no discussions, no engagement with Labor on the issues that you've raised. But that's fine; that's how your party normally operates. But you can't be expecting us to simply agree to something we're not consulted about. The problem with this whole bill is that the Turnbull government has made these visa payments the only source of funding for skills in the VET system. We've got serious concerns about the insecurity of that revenue—and we're not the only ones who have said that. You've indicated it. The employer organisations have indicated worries about security for this fund. But this is what this rabble of a government has decided to do—this incompetent government, this decaying government, this government that is interested only in fighting each other and not dealing with the key issues for the Australian public. This is what they've decided to do. This is what we're faced with. And I suppose when One Nation is going across the floor, supporting this government on all of these issues, it makes it difficult to stop some of these crazy propositions that come here. We've got a combination of these Independents, of One Nation, of the government, supporting these propositions. These will get through. What we have to do is try to ameliorate the problems. That's why we have indicated that we want labour market testing, and we thank the crossbench and the Greens for supporting the labour market testing proposal we put up. This is not simply about academics coming in. This is about universities bringing in skilled trades, the same as businesses are bringing them in. We want Australians to get the first chance at jobs in this country. As I said, this is the only source of funding for the VET system. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected, we've seen 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships decline under it—a decline of 35 per cent. The Skilling Australians Fund relies exclusively on fees from temporary and permanent skilled visas. Any exemptions could have serious implications on funding for Australia's skills and training sector, including the number of apprenticeships for young Australians. Labor is aware the Turnbull government rushed skilled migration changes and created uncertainty in the university and education sector. This arrogant government failed to consult about the changes. That's why Labor led the way by announcing a new four-year visa for world leaders in science, medicine, academia, research and technology, with a pathway to permanent residency for educators, innovators and researchers of global standing. The new SMART visa will allow universities, research institutes, medical, scientific and advanced technology industries and companies, and public research agencies to bring the best and brightest to Australia to collaborate with their local counterparts. This is not a tax on knowledge, as Senator Hanson-Young has said. We take the view that you can actually deal with this, and that's what our SMART visa would do. Labor's superior policy means Australia can remain a world leader in innovation, medical and scientific research as well as in high-tech industries. We need to have access to the very best minds from around the world; we've got no argument about that. We just think there are better ways of doing it than this government has come up with. Given our concerns, and the implications an exemption could have for a number of apprenticeships for young people across Australia, Labor will not be supporting this amendment. We need a decent VET system in this country. We need the TAFE system to be operating effectively. We are saying that we will make sure TAFE is properly funded. We will have that inquiry into the VET system if we are fortunate enough to be elected at the next election. We've got the answers on skills and apprenticeships. We've got the answers on VET. We've got the answers on making sure we can compete internationally. We are far ahead of the government on these issues, and nothing this government does in tonight's budget—which focuses on simply handing $80 billion to big business and $17 billion to the banks—will fix those problems. The coalition should stop worrying about how much the finance sector and the banking sector are going to put in their pockets for the next election. They should focus on the key issues for Australians—that is, getting a roof over their heads, getting proper skills and training, getting a decent health system and getting a decent education system. These are the issues for us, and these are the issues that this government continually fails on. We take the view that the amendment should not be supported. We take the view that the best way to fix this is to make sure that, after the next election, there is a Labor government dealing with the issues of importance to the Australian public, making sure we've got jobs and skills and making sure that we can compete internationally. These are the issues of importance to the Australian public. 12:44 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I must admit I was tempted to support Senator Hanson-Young on this amendment. The bottom line is to come down in favour of what Senator Cameron has said in not supporting it. It was a pretty good argument about robbing Peter to pay Paul. I can understand that. But I think it also runs this risk: by exempting higher education providers and registered training organisations, it would appear that you are supporting and encouraging more 457 visas, and, despite the rumours, I don't support that and won't support that. That is why, also, I'll be supporting Senator Cameron on the labour market testing provisions, as some other crossbenchers will. So I will not be supporting this amendment. 12:45 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I indicate on behalf of the government that we won't be supporting the amendment moved by the Australian Greens. The higher education and training sector does account for a number of temporary and permanent employer-sponsored nominations, and we believe that the arrangements that we're putting in place should be comprehensive. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8387 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:49]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

 9 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 39 NOES Anning, F Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Marshall, GM McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McGrath, J Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Singh, LM Smith, D Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Urquhart, AE Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018, as amended, agreed to; Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 agreed to.
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018 reported with amendments; Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 reported without amendments; reports adopted.

 Third Reading 9 12:53 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to Bills read a third time. Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018 9

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018

Second Reading 9 12:54 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today I rise on behalf of the Labor opposition to make remarks about the bill before us. The Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill. I note that it gives effect to measures announced this time last year, which is the government response to the parliamentary inquiry into the child support program, and, indeed, support for the No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School new compliance arrangements. I want to say at the outset that we support dealing with some of the complexities in the child support program. While we don't entirely believe in the approach the government is taking, we certainly support the No Jab, No Pay component of this legislation and the majority of proposed changes to child support in schedule 2. What I want to flag with the chamber this afternoon are Labor's concerns about changes relating to amended tax assessments and overpayments when it comes to child support. We support the change to allow the Child Support Registrar to take into account an amended tax assessment and change a child support assessment as a result. What we are concerned about, however, is that the bill allows a child support assessment to be applied retrospectively. We have communicated our concerns to the government about this, and we're awaiting their response to whether they'll take action on that in this bill. I hope that by the time I've finished these remarks you'll be able to give us some advice about how you intend to proceed. I raise this because we're concerned that child support recipients who've received child support payments in good faith will unexpectedly owe debts, having already spent the money—that they received in good faith—legitimately on their children, recognising that many of these households are low income and that you can't suddenly acquire an unexpected debt in a low-income household with children. Today we're seeking that child support registrars are able to take into account the circumstances of the parent and whether or not a retrospective child support assessment would place them in unjustifiable hardship, having regard to the financial circumstances of the parent also. There are a number of ways to do this. We can delete that schedule and deal with it at a later time or we can have regard for an amendment to that effect, which Labor would like to put forward. We believe our amendment maintains existing arrangements that allow the registrar to make a retrospective child support assessment where there has been, importantly, evasion or fraud—that is, evasion of tax or other fraud. Otherwise, Labor's amendment limits the registrar to making only prospective changes to child support assessments. And I'm letting the chamber know today that, if these solutions are not successful, we will seek to separate schedule 1 part 2 from the bill so that the Senate can consider the No Jab, No Pay changes, which are clearly important for the health and welfare of Australian children. I'm going to make some remarks about No Jab, No Pay. It's important that we strengthen immunisation rates so all Australian children have the best chance of growing up strong and healthy. In government, Labor made important changes to the family tax benefits designed to lift immunisation rates. We made the decision to link family tax benefit end-of-year supplements to immunisation, and, ahead of the 2013 election, we committed to the further tightening of immunisation requirements within the family payments system. This has been incredibly important to the lifting of immunisation ratings across Australia. So these principles have enjoyed bipartisan support for a number of years, and we, on this side, believe very strongly in vaccinations. Vaccinations are one of the greatest success stories of human development over the last century. We've seen the eradication and the near eradication of diseases such as polio and smallpox, including here in Australia. According to the World Health Organization, in 1980, prior to vaccination, measles was responsible for about 2.6 million deaths each year. It's incredibly important that policies like No Jab, No Pay underlie the government's belief in the importance of vaccination because we know that there are a number of anti-vaccination beliefs that people try to propagate within the community and they do get their foothold in small communities around Australia, including, indeed, in some of the better-off communities in which family tax benefit type No Jab, No Pay payments are not as influential. Immunisation rates fall and children's and other people's lives are placed at real risk if you have a cluster of unimmunised people, particularly children, who become exposed to a disease like measles. We need to rely on strong herd immunity through vaccination and ensuring that people receive adequate vaccination. We want to be able to stop the chain of infection and we know that the greater the number of people who are immune the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with that infection. Since No Jab, No Pay, some 200,000 families have taken action to ensure they meet these immunisation requirements, and that is incredibly significant when it comes to reducing the burden of disease on Australians. I note that these are not the only policies that are important. We've had No Jab, No Play laws in places like Victoria, and other policies in other states such as my own home state of Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. Indeed, No Jab, No Play is also important because, as I said, not all families are influenced by the family tax benefit payments. The policy is working but we can't be complacent, so we very much support the principles in this legislation. Large vaccinated populations protect those who are weak or susceptible to disease, or whose immunity from previous vaccination has fallen. So we very much support the No Jab, No Pay policy and the elements of this legislation before us that implement that. Schedule 2 in that regard outlines that parents who do not keep their child's immunisations up to date are not eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. The supplement will be paid at $737.30 per child for an income under $80,000, and the bill amends the No Jab, No Pay rules to instead withhold about $28 per fortnight of family tax benefit part A payments to families whose child does not meet immunisation requirements instead of withholding the supplement. This would come into effect on 1 July 2018. We note that when a child's vaccinations are overdue, the family would be notified and a grace period would apply for either the child to get vaccinated or for a valid medical exemption to be obtained. If the vaccination is not complied with within that 63-day period, or an exemption obtained, that's when the fortnightly reductions will begin. The change is required because, as I indicated before, we need to make sure that as many families as possible have an economic lever applied to them in this regard. Currently, the existing rules do not apply to families with an annual income in excess of $80,000. So we need to make sure that that lever is applied to as many families as possible. Those families need this change because they're no longer eligible to receive family tax benefit part A in an end-of-year supplement. I will now move on to some discussion about child support. We very much support the child support system here in Australia. We know that there are complexities for families trying to navigate the system and for the government in trying to implement that system. In the main, we support what the government is doing in this bill. In relation to schedule 1, part 1, the amount of child support and family tax benefit payable is assessed on the paying parent's taxable income and the amount of time they spend caring for children or a child. We know that sometimes one parent is providing more care than another under a court order or agreement. In this instance, the other parent might be aggrieved because they're not getting as much opportunity to care as they would like, or as they believe they should be entitled to, and feel that they are therefore paying more child support than they should be. Under these circumstances the registrar can make a care arrangement, which is an interim determination based on a written agreement, parenting plan or court order rather than on actual care. This is very important. The arrangement generally runs for a period of 14 weeks. In special circumstances it can be extended to 26 weeks. The amount of child support paid during that period is based on the agreed care or court order, not the actual care provided, and based on the parent who is paying taking reasonable steps in terms of compliance with that parenting arrangement. This option of an interim period is intended to give both parents time to resolve the dispute over care. This means that, after the interim period lapses, the child support assessment changes to reflect the actual care. I note that these changes very much come out of an inquiry into the child support program undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and their report From conflict to cooperation. The committee made 22 recommendations, all of which Labor supported. The committee heard evidence that 14 weeks is shorter than the normal length of time it would take parties to resolve their disputes over care, given the length of time it takes for dispute resolution to commence or for legal proceedings to be resolved. The proposal in part 1 of schedule 1 is to change the length of interim periods, and Labor supports this. I don't think I've got time to go into the full detail of what is in the bill in relation to disputes about care where there is a pre-existing court order. But we support those provisions in the bill relating to the time periods. We do note, however, that, for disputes about care where there is a non-enforceable agreement of a parenting plan, not a court order, the maximum interim period would be 14 weeks and that this would be reduced to four weeks if the disputed care change occurs after the first year of the agreement or the plan and the person with increased care continuously takes reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution. We are concerned and agree with concerns that people can unreasonably delay and drag their feed in resolving a family parenting order through the courts and that that in turn has an impact on child support payments. The interim period ends if the person with reduced care stops seeking to enforce the order, agreement or plan. It also ends if a new care arrangement begins to apply or if the existing one stops applying. I will not dwell too much on schedule 1, part 3, because we support those changes, or on schedule 1, part 4, the collection of overpayments. In the short time I have available, I want to return to schedule 1, part 2, where we have some concerns about the current legislation. Currently the amount of child support paid is calculated on the basis that the individual's tax assessment for a given year is fundamentally correct and cannot be recalculated if the tax assessment is shown to be incorrect, unless special circumstances, such as tax evasion or fraud, exist. We've seen cases where payer parents are obligated to pay an amount of child support that is artificially high, out of step with their income and unaffordable, or, alternatively, where they are underpaying for child support because they can only pay what they can afford to pay, but, in the meantime, they accumulate a debt because they're told that they owe more child support than they, in effect, actually do. So this part of the bill allows for the amount of child support to be recalculated, based on an amended tax return. In circumstances where an amended tax assessment results in a higher adjustable income, the higher adjustable income would be applied retrospectively to the paying parent's child-support obligation over the course of the year. If the amended tax assessment results in a lower adjustable taxable income, this would also be applied retrospectively if the paying parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment either before the lodgement of that year's tax return falls due, or within 28 days of receiving the tax assessment, within 28 days of becoming aware of an issue with the tax assessment, or if special circumstances exist. This reduces the amount of any potential overpayment that could be claimed from a payee by requiring that action be taken quickly on behalf of the payer. What we, on this side of the chamber, are concerned about is that this could lead to child support payees unexpectedly receiving a potentially large debt, having received payments—money that they have received in good faith. As I highlighted before, child support recipients are often on very low incomes and are unlikely to be able to service a debt, particularly where it has arisen through no fault of their own. So we're seeking today to move amendments or to learn what the government's intention is to address these concerns around these issues. Finally, we very much support the No Jab, No Pay policy. We support amendments that are laid out in this bill. We do, however, have some concerns about the child support changes in this legislation, particularly relating to amended tax assessments. The concerns that we highlight to the chamber today are that child support recipients who have received child support payments in good faith will unfairly owe debts, and we're seeking to move amendments to address this situation. 13:13 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018. I'll point out that, as has just been discussed, there are two main components of this bill. One's about No Jab, No Pay, and the other, of course, is about child support. I'll be addressing my comments to the child support component of this bill, and Senator Di Natale will be addressing the issues around No Jab, No Pay. Child support, I'll acknowledge straightaway, is a very complex area to address, and it's often very controversial. But it is an absolutely essential component of our families policy and our approach to supporting children in the community as they grow and making sure that they are adequately supported. So we do think there is a need to address some of the issues around child support. The Greens, however, do have concerns regarding the measures that are contained in this bill. The proposed child support changes are primarily based on the recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report of 2015, From conflict to cooperation: inquiry into the Child Support Program. Given how complex and detailed the child support system is, and given that changes to child support are often controversial, the Australian Greens are deeply concerned that there has not been an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback through the normal committee inquiry process. Any proposed changes to the child support program should be the subject of comprehensive modelling prior to implementation, with particular regard to the potential impact on people affected by family violence and issues around child safety. The House of Representatives committee made 25 recommendations in their report. The government tabled its response to the inquiry into the child support program in August 2016. At that time, in their response, the only recommendation the government committed to legislatively was recommendation 22, which relates to debts and the collection of overpayments from carers or payees—the parent with the higher percentage of care. A number of the 25 recommendations related to how to improve the child support system. Unfortunately, the government has only chosen to implement three or four of those recommendations. They have moved beyond just recommendation 22. In their response, they committed to a legislative commitment on recommendation 22. They did support some others in principle, which is why, I presume, some of these have been included in this particular piece of legislation. Unfortunately, some of the recommendations the government has chosen to implement in this bill are harsher measures that relate to debt recovery processes from single parents rather than addressing the systemic issues. I understand there will be further legislation introduced by the government at some later stage relating to some of those other recommendations. I'm also aware of the family law reform review process that is currently underway. However, I do have concerns that these are the recommendations that have been brought in the absence of that overview. The amendments are in four parts in schedule 1. Part 1 relates to the interim care determination periods. Part 2 is around the amended tax assessments—and I'll come back to some of these. Part 3 relates to child support agreements and part 4 relates to child support overpayments. We have concerns that the debt recovery changes will be seen by single parents as a more punitive approach that will make their lives more difficult. Because we didn't have a committee inquiry into these proposed amendments, we've gone out separately to talk to stakeholders to see whether they have any concerns relating to this bill. We are particularly concerned about the impact on single parents, of whom a majority by far are single mothers. Of the child support recipients whose gender is known, 86 per cent were identified as female and 14 per cent were identified as male. So some of these changes are disproportionately going to impact on single mothers. The most concerning measure in the bill is that it aligns the debt recovery methods available to the registrar for overpayments to child support payees—in other words, the main caregiver—with the current methods available for recovering debts from payers. This bill allows for overpayments resulting from backdated reductions to an assessment or other maintenance liability to be recovered by the registrar, in most cases, and amends the back-paying provisions for retrospectively creating overpayments or arrears. This change mean that a payee—and that's usually the mother—will have harsher debt recovery methods used against them if they are overpaid, which is often due to an administrative error. In most cases, this overpayment occurs through no fault of their own. They are not rorting the system. They are not claiming fraudulently. They are receiving a payment that was calculated by a third party, through a court order or an agreement. The calculation of child support payment is quite complex and is reliant on a number of factors. A child support payee would trust that the authorities and the appropriate decision makers who have made the calculation have done it correctly and lawfully. The payee in most cases is taking their payment in good faith, on the provision of a court order, as I said, or a private agreement. It is not up to them to work out how much they are being paid. This measure has the potential to unnecessarily and unfairly punish single parents if they have been mistakenly overpaid or their payments miscalculated. The child carer could be treated in a much more punitive manner, potentially in the same way as someone who is not paying their child support and has a child support debt. Methods for debt recovery include through employer withholding of wages; withholding of social security, family assistance or veterans payments; offsetting other debt payments against the carer debt; court orders to prevent certain transactions from taking place; the proceeds of certain transactions being used to pay a carer debt; and the use of departure prohibitions to prevent overseas travel in certain circumstances. Wilfully avoiding support for one's children by refusing to help pay for their upbringing—and taking avoidance measures to do that—and being accidentally overpaid an account are very different circumstances. Why should people avoiding their responsibilities be treated in the same punitive way as a single parent who has the larger share of caring responsibilities, when their circumstances are not in any way the same? We are concerned that this measure will exacerbate the already difficult circumstances faced by single-parent households. We know that single-mother households make up a high proportion of families living in poverty. We know that it is the children who will suffer when their main caregiving parent has their income reduced through a debt recovery process. The median income of a child support recipient in my home state of Western Australia in December 2016 was just over $25,000. Around 56 per cent of people receiving a child support payment are also receiving an income support payment, and people already know how insufficient those income support payments are. Twenty-four per cent of people receiving a child support payment are owed arrears, and the average amount of arrears owing is $5,800. If you are on the median income of a child support recipient, you might be owed almost a fifth of your yearly income. Where are the measures to strengthen the system to ensure that parents are adequately supported to raise their children? This change to overpayment recovery is not supported by evidence. There is no evidence showing that the existing recovery provisions for overpayments are not working or that there is a sufficient problem of payers not being reimbursed any overpayments, and this measure addresses largely anecdotal concerns. There is also no data available showing how many payees receive overpayments, nor data on whether or not these overpayments are recovered. If overpayment to payees is in fact such a significant issue, it should not be addressed through such a sledgehammer approach. We need to see the data, and a change such as this shouldn't be legislated on the basis of anecdotal evidence. During the inquiry into the child support payment system, National Legal Aid raised concerns about the existing arrangements for the collection of overpayments, particularly through the withholding of child support payments, which can cause significant hardships, pointing out that these overpayments are often not the fault of the payee. A significant number of overpayments to payees are caused by factors outside the control of the payee—for example, the late lodgement of tax returns on the part of the payer, and I want to come back to that issue of late payment of tax returns. This bill also allows amended tax assessments to be taken into account by the child support register in child support assessments if it results in a higher taxable income or where it results in a lower taxable income under certain circumstances. The amount of child support paid is currently based on a person's tax returns. Special circumstances such as tax evasion or fraud allow for reassessment. The proposed changes allow the child support payment to be recalculated based on an amended tax return. The amended assessment results in a higher adjustable taxable payment. This would be applied retrospectively to the paying parent's child support obligation. If the amended tax assessment results in a lower adjustable payable income, this would also be retrospectively applied where the paying parent applies for the amendment of the tax assessment either before the year's tax return is due to be lodged or within 28 days of becoming aware of the issue with the tax assessment, unless special circumstances exist. The time limit for assessment does not reduce the amount of any potential overpayment that could be claimed from a payee. However, again, there is a concern that this will result in child support payees receiving an unexpected debt, as they have received payments and spent the money believing the information provided to the tax office was accurate. We share the ALP's concerns about part 2. We think part 2 should be either withdrawn or amended. We have concerns about the impact this will have. There are other issues in relation to child support that we think need to be addressed, and that's why I'll move a second reading amendment in a minute. We think these are very important concerns. They were raised during the 2015 inquiry. We would have liked to have seen those addressed as a matter of urgency. A case study was submitted to the child support inquiry which outlines an issue in regard to tax assessments that needs to be addressed. It said: A client sought assistance from a commission. She had a private collect case and the father was originally assessed to pay the minimum rate for their three children. The client was not aware of the father's financial circumstances and did not question the assessments. Child Support retrospectively re-assessed several years of child support when the father lodged tax returns (late). This resulted in assessments that were much higher than the minimum rate. Because the case was private collect, Centrelink assumed that the client had received the (newly revised) assessed rate of child support. Shortly afterwards, the client was issued with a notice from the Family Assistance Office advising her that she had been overpaid almost $8,000 in Family Tax Benefit A and that this would need to be repaid. Centrelink then took immediate steps to recover the overpayment by withholding the supplementary amount she was entitled to receive, as well as a portion of her Family Tax Benefit. When she contacted Child Support she was told that as the case was private collect they could not assist in collecting the shortfall from the payer. In other words, she hadn't received the money that she was assessed to have received but Centrelink took it into account as if she had already received that and then docked her family tax benefit. That is clearly unfair. This issue has been flagged for a long time and has not been addressed. It should be addressed. In circumstances such as this case study, where a retrospective adjustment results in a higher child support assessment and the case is private collect, consideration must be given to permit a payee to register the result in retrospective arrears for collection with the DHS. This is particularly due to the impact of revised calculation on FTB A in creating an immediate Centrelink overpayment even though the payee has not received the newly collected child support payments, which means that they have a debt even though they have not received any extra money. I am moving a second reading amendment in relation to this issue and the non-lodgement of tax returns. The non-lodgement of tax returns has been identified time and time again as a difficulty in properly calculating child support payments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 195565 Are you moving that amendment now? Senator SIEWERT e5z Yes. I move this amendment to the second reading motion: At the end of the motion, add:    ", but the Senate calls on the government to:    (a) take action to address the chronic non-lodgement of tax returns to ensure the integrity of the Child Support Program; and    (b) amend the legislation to protect Private Collect payees who receive a Family Tax Benefit A debt as a consequence of the payer's child support reassessment." In its response to the inquiry into child support, the government has failed to address the key recommendation regarding parents who fail to lodge tax returns in order to avoid paying child support. Recommendation 7 reads: The Committee recommends the Australian Government amend current policy to ensure that the penalties applicable to the non-lodgement or late-lodgement of tax returns are enforced for all clients of the Child Support Program. Nonlodgement of tax returns allows parents to hide or minimise incomes and results in the CSA working from an estimated income. The nonlodgement of tax returns corrodes the overall effectiveness of the Child Support Scheme and must be addressed by this parliament. We think it is now just as urgent, if not more so, as addressing the issues around recovering debts from carers. We need to ensure that people have enough money to live on by addressing the integrity of the child support system. These practices are obviously corroding the effectiveness of the child support system but also landing principal carers in debt when recalculations occur and Centrelink takes them instantly into account. We believe it's important that these issues are addressed. My second reading amendment calls on the government to compel the lodgement of tax returns or to require this issue is addressed to ensure the integrity of the child support program. Another way to ensure the integrity of child support is through a child support guarantee system, which was also discussed in the House of Representatives committee report. The committee recommended this be considered and modelling be conducted. A number of countries have a child support system in which the government agrees to make up some of the shortfall or the entire shortfall if the paying parent does not meet the child support requirements. In other words, children do not miss out because parents aren't doing the right thing. This removes the financial impact of spasmodic payments and nonpayments and is particularly important for low-income families living from week to week. It would also sever the use of child support as an avenue to practise abuse and controlling behaviour—which does occur. We believe there are important changes that need to be made to the child support program and we urge the government to get on and deal with the other committee recommendations, which would significantly improve the system. 13:33 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Tonight, Australians will hear more news from the Treasurer about the Turnbull government's ongoing commitment to making Australia a better place and making this a better country for all Australians. The Treasurer will tonight outline some of the financial approaches the government is taking to ensure that we continue to progress. This is a government that not only looks after roads and bridges and hospitals and schools but also tries to help people and help families to achieve their best in the modern society in which we live. The name of this bill actually says it all: Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018. This bill is the Turnbull government's commitment to supporting families and to protecting the health and wellbeing of children. It's about prioritising the protection of Australian children. I certainly support the bill and I encourage all other senators to support this important amendment with the view to prioritising the welfare and wellbeing of all children. The bill contains a number of provisions to help families and help children. I want to briefly concentrate on schedule 2, which is a policy that I know the Prime Minister—indeed, all of our government—is very committed to and very proud of, and that is helping more Australian children become immunised. Since our government first introduced the No Jab, No Pay policy in 2016, national immunisation rates have increased across all three targeted groups of one-year-olds, two-year-olds and five-year-olds, and more than 210,000 families have taken action to ensure that their children now meet the immunisation requirement. Immunisation coverage rates for one-year-olds and five-year-olds have reached more than 93 per cent, as at June last year, and this is nearing the critical level of 95 per cent to provide what is known as herd immunity. That means when large numbers of individuals are immune to diseases and the chains of infection are disrupted, thereby stopping or slowing any particular disease. Acting Deputy President, as you know, and as all senators will know, this is vital to protecting children, and not only children but the wider community as well, particularly young babies who haven't yet been fully immunised and older people who, perhaps, cannot be vaccinated from preventable diseases. As part of the 2017-18 budget, the government provided some $14.1 million over four years for ongoing catch-up vaccinations for almost 375,000 Australians aged between 10 and 19 and for more than 8,000 adult refugees and humanitarian entrants. The government also provided $5½ million to encourage Australian parents and carers to vaccinate their children. This campaign specifically targeted areas of low vaccination rates by addressing some of the myths and misconceptions that abound while at the same time explaining the benefits of childhood vaccinations for both the individual and the community in which they live. Schedule 2 of this bill strengthens the current immunisation incentive measures to ensure that from 1 July this year children must meet immunisation and health check requirements as a prerequisite for families to be eligible for their full fortnightly entitlement to family tax benefit A. Currently, senators will know, because we've dealt with this issue before, that the No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School policies link family tax benefit A end-of-year supplement for each child to meeting immunisation and health check requirements. The new measure that we're introducing now will replace this incentive and serve as an immediate and constant reminder to parents of the need to immunise their children and to access a health check for their four-year-olds on time. The new measures will also ensure that all family tax benefit families, irrespective of income, continue to have a clear financial incentive to immunise their children. Under the new rules, if a child does not meet the immunisation or health check requirements, their fortnightly tax benefit part A will be reduced by around $28 per fortnight. Over the course of the year, this is the same value as the current end-of-year supplement, but the glory of this is that it serves as an immediate reminder to parents who may have just inadvertently overlooked it that their child does need to get the health check or meet the immunisation target. Should the child not meet the immunisation requirements, families have 63 days to meet the immunisation requirements. This grace period provides parents enough time to comply with those requirements even if they experience a delay in vaccinating their child—for example, due to illness, being away on holidays or something like that. It also aligns with the 63-day grace period in which to meet immunisation requirements in order to receive childcare payments. The bill, as well, makes technical amendments in relation to the approved form and manner in which an application for a medical exemption from immunisation requirements may be made. This change will further enhance the integrity of the measure and help ensure that only legitimate cases qualify for an exemption. The government believes—and I think the community generally has the same belief and expectation—that there is no excuse for parents who, for no valid medical reason, choose not to immunise their children. These parents are putting at risk not only their own child's health but the health of every other person's children as well. Parents still have the right not to vaccinate their child, but a family's choice not to immunise their children is not supported by the government, nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of undiminished family payments. I recall, when this debate first started, a group of people coming to see me, as one of their federal representatives. They were very much opposed to the vaccination of children. I recall meeting with them. They seemed genuine. They were committed to their view. I didn't quite agree with them but I listened intently to them, had a discussion with them and was, as I say, impressed with their sincerity. But as a community we understand the benefits of vaccination. It's vaccination not just for our own children—and grandchildren, as the case may be—but for all children. If our children are not properly vaccinated, we put other families and other children at risk. The bill doesn't mandate that families have to vaccinate; it just says: if you don't, you're going to lose some of these family payments. If that's the choice families make, we think they are putting their child and the community at risk of infectious diseases, and they will no longer be eligible to receive the full fortnightly family tax benefit part A payment. We hope that the incentives will encourage them to vaccinate their children so that Australia can achieve the vaccination rates we desire. Can I conclude by giving some brief statistics on vaccination rates since the government introduced its initial No Jab, No Pay policy, in January 2016. About 246,000 children and their families have taken action to ensure that they now meet the immunisation requirements. Immunisation coverage rates for the one- and five-year-old cohorts have reached 93 per cent. In March 2018, 94.05 per cent of children aged between 12 and 15 months had been vaccinated—up 1.77 per cent since the policy started. Of children aged between 24 and 27 months, 90.52 per cent had been vaccinated, and that's up by 1.21 per cent since the policy started. And the percentage for children aged up to five years is up 1.64 per cent since the policy started. The immunisation rate for Indigenous five-year-olds is now over 96 per cent. When large numbers of individuals are immune to disease, chains of infection are disrupted, stopping and slowing the spread of disease. I think this is good policy. I urge the Senate to support this bill in all its provisions, but particularly the provision to encourage even greater immunisation of children. 13:45 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018. As a former early childhood educator, I know the importance of giving young children the best start in life. To enable that to happen, we have to make sure that parents have the proper resources they need. One way of ensuring that parents have those resources is through the child support system, and another way is to ensure that their children are safe from potentially deadly diseases that can be prevented through immunisation. The bill we are debating today addresses both of these issues. Labor have always supported evidence driven approaches to policy development. That's why we will support measures that improve the health and wellbeing of all Australian children. If Mr Turnbull were serious about improving the lives of Australian children, he wouldn't be attempting to cut support for single parents who are studying to improve their employment prospects. And if Mr Turnbull were serious about supporting families, he wouldn't be trying to slash family tax benefit payments for 100,000 Australian families. Labor have a strong history of standing up for vulnerable Australians, including children. We support a fair child support system that puts the wellbeing of children at its core. The child support scheme was introduced by the Hawke government in 1988 and was designed to address the difficulties a parent could face when attempting to collect maintenance from the other parent. There were concerns at the time that women and children particularly were increasingly facing poverty after family separation and, as a result, the federal government was increasingly bearing the cost of raising children when one parent was refusing to contribute to their child's upkeep. The scheme was designed to make it simpler for caring parents to receive child support from the other parent by giving the responsibility for collection and enforcement to the Australian Taxation Office. The tax office was also given responsibility for assessing the amount of child support to be paid. Subsequently, the responsibility for the administration of the child support scheme has now been shifted to the Department of Social Services and delivery of the scheme to the Department of Human Services. The scheme seeks to implement the principle that both parents should contribute to raising their children through care and financial support. Assessments should reflect the realistic cost of raising children and a parent's actual capacity to pay. While the issue of child support is often by its nature an emotive one, the system works well in the vast majority of cases—but that doesn't mean that it can't and shouldn't be improved. It does mean that these improvements can be made through incremental advances, not through a radical overhaul of the system. We will work with the government to make improvements, rather than trying to exploit this issue for political gain like we've seen other senators and their parties try to do. The change in this bill implements three of the 25 recommendations put forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in 2015 following its inquiry into the child support program. While three out of 25 is not a particularly good hit rate, we will largely support these changes because they will strengthen child support in Australia. The bill includes changes to the amount of time before a child support assessment is recalculated to reflect the actual care being provided where parents are in dispute about a care arrangement, and the amount of time that the assessment remains the same during a dispute is known as an 'interim period'. The current interim period is too short to allow sufficient time for dispute resolution processes to take place before the assessment is recalculated to reflect the actual care taking place. This bill increases the interim period in most circumstances while one parent is trying to enforce their rights under a custody order, provided that they are actively engaging in the dispute resolution process. Currently, exemptions from participating in dispute resolution processes are available for families that have experienced family and domestic violence. These exemptions will still be available. The bill also makes it easier for courts to set aside binding child support agreements made before 1 July 2008. Since 1 July 2008 it has been a precondition that parents entering into a binding child support agreement receive legal advice. At this time the requirements were tightened for when the court could intervene to change or set aside a binding child support agreement. This has meant that for families who have made their agreement before 1 July 2008, often without the benefit of legal advice, it has become very difficult to amend agreements that were made under a different set of rules. This bill also implements a recommendation for child support assessments to be adjusted to take into account amended tax assessments. The amount of child support payable is determined with regard to a person's adjusted taxable income, among other factors. Currently, if an income tax assessment is found to be wrong, a child support assessment is not able to be varied until the next financial year and if special circumstances apply. This can result in serious inequalities either if the initial assessment is too high and causes the amount of child support payable to be calculated from an artificially high income and be unaffordable for the paying parent or if the child support payments are too low and cause financial difficulty for the recipient parent. However, the bill, as drafted, would allow the new assessment to be applied retrospectively, creating large and unexpected debts for parents, and we're concerned that this change may leave payees with an unexpected debt after receiving payments in good faith. I understand my colleague Senator Pratt will be moving an amendment dealing with this matter. Child support payers and payees need to have certainty in the amount of their fortnightly payments. This bill also makes the child support agency's power to recover overpayments consistent with their powers to collect arrears. It's taken two years for the government to act on these sensible recommendations. Child support can be a complex and emotional issue for families. For the government to have delayed action for so long is an insult. We must recognise that, when things do go wrong in the child support system, it is unfortunately the children who are disproportionately impacted. We must act to ensure that, where improvements to the system can be made, they are addressed in as timely a manner as possible. As I mentioned earlier, this bill is concerned with two issues, and the second issue is that of immunisation. Australia has fought a hard battle with polio over the years. At polio's peak, in around 1953, when the first vaccine was introduced to Australia, about 10,000 people a year—mostly children and teenagers—were catching the disease. The polio virus causes paralysis by targeting the nerve cells in the spine which control muscles. Hundreds of people were dying as a result. Many tens of thousands of people were infected from the 1930s to the 1950s and many thousands of Australians are living today with the legacy of this disease, but incredible progress has been made against polio. The entire western Pacific region, which includes Australia, was declared polio free less than 50 years after the vaccine was introduced to Australia. On 27 March 2014 the World Health Organization, WHO, certified India as a polio-free country, marking more than three years since the last case of polio. Ten other countries in the World Health Organization South-East Asia region were also certified as polio free in March 2014. Indeed, by 2013 the number of worldwide polio cases had fallen from an estimated 350,000 in 1988 to 407 in 2013. That's a decline of more than 99 per cent of reported cases. Sometime in the coming decades polio will be completely eradicated, making it the second disease after smallpox to be so. Incidences of other diseases that were extremely common and were quite deadly have also been radically reduced. In Australia, in the period from 1926 to 1935, 4,073 people died of diphtheria, 2,808 died of pertussis, 879 died from tetanus, 430 died from polio and 1,102 died from the very commonmeasles. In contrast, in the period from 1996 to 2000, just 14 deaths were caused by these five diseases combined. The reason for such a transformation in our childhood health landscape is down to vaccinations. There's been a concerted effort from many governments, the medical fraternity and parents to remove these diseases from our society, and that's where the second half of today's bill comes in. The No Jab, No Pay policy results in families who fail to keep their children up to date with the vaccination schedule losing the family tax benefit part A supplement. Medical exemptions exist to ensure that children with legitimate medical concerns are not unfairly impacted by this rule. When the No Jab, No Pay policy was introduced, families earning more than $80,000 per annum were eligible for the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. Currently, families below $80,000 per annum are eligible for family tax benefit part A and the family tax benefit part A supplement. However, more recent changes mean that families earning over $80,000 a year are still eligible for family tax benefit part A but no longer eligible for the family tax benefit part A supplement. This means that families with higher household incomes have not been impacted by the No Jab, No Pay rules in the same way as some other families who also receive family tax benefit part A. This is not only unfair, as the policy only impacts on low-income families, but it has seen an unintended public health impact. We've seen an example across the water from Tasmania: in four of Melbourne's wealthiest suburbs—Burwood East, South Yarra, St Kilda and Brighton—immunisation rates have dropped to around 85 per cent, down from around 94 per cent five years ago. This bill changes the No Jab, No Pay policy to withhold approximately $28 per fortnight—or $2.02 per day—from family tax benefit part A payments instead of withholding the end-of-year supplement where a child does not meet the vaccination requirements. Once a child falls behind on the vaccination schedule, the family will be notified of this by the Secretary to the Department of Social Services and this will trigger a 63-day grace period, during which time the vaccination must either be caught up on or a valid medical exemption sought. If neither of those things occur during the grace period then fortnightly payments will be reduced, effective from the notification date. This means that families who do not keep their child's immunisation up to date will face a financial penalty regardless of whether they earn above or below $80,000 a year. It's hoped that this amendment will also encourage those families who earn over $80,000 and who have so far not updated their child's immunisation to do so. Labor supported the original changes in 2015 and we will support these changes because the science is clear: vaccines save lives. This policy has bipartisan support. We know it works. Since the program commenced in 2015, about 200,000 families have initiated or updated their immunisation coverage. That's great news, but we've got to maintain our vigilance. The amendments in this bill will strengthen this policy, because vaccines mean less disease and considerably fewer deaths. Strengthening immunisation rates is key to ensuring all Australian children have the best chance at growing up strong and healthy. We know that not everyone can be immunised. There are infants who are too young to be vaccinated, as well as the elderly and the sick who may be too frail for vaccinations. But it's vital that we reach and maintain herd immunity to protect those who are unable to be vaccinated. The larger the percentage of immunisation coverage in the community then the greater our herd immunity, the fewer disease outbreaks we will have and the more lives that will be saved. Strengthening the immunity of our population so that unprotected babies will not be afflicted with whooping cough or other life-threatening and preventable diseases is just the right thing to do. It's also an important protection for people for whom a vaccine may not produce a strong immune response. However, there are some in this chamber who do not believe in the value of ensuring that diseases can be vaccinated against. I've got to say that I was just aghast when Senator Hanson sought to jump on the anti-vaccination bandwagon with populist and opportunistic comments during the Western Australian election last year. I thought that it undermined public confidence in vaccination. Senator Hansen made those dangerous comments, telling parents to 'investigate' whether or not they should vaccinate their children. Sadly, we live in an age where the internet is full of people making unqualified and incorrect comments on every topic available. The proliferation of people with a flat-earth mindset is an example of the conclusions that can be arrived at by listening to some of the opinions found online. Whether these people are genuine and misinformed, or have an alternative political or commercial agenda, they can do quite a lot of harm to individuals and to society. The results of such an 'investigation' is exampled by an outbreak of chickenpox at Brunswick Primary School in 2015 that infected 80 students, as well as a measles outbreak in the suburb barely two months later. Since the outbreaks, immunisation rates in Brunswick have lifted to approximately 97 per cent, up from 91 per cent in 2014-15. So the research on the issue is clear: immunisation saves thousands of Australian lives and millions of lives internationally each year. It's that simple. Despite Senator Hanson's view that No Jab, No Pay is a 'dictatorship', it's an important public health measure, and part of the reason that tens of thousand of Australian children are not dying each year from diseases that can be vaccinated against. While the two topics of this bill we are debating today are quite different, they both impact— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Bilyk. It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice. You will be in continuation upon resumption of the debate. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 18 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I advise the Senate that Senator Cormann, Leader of the Government in the Senate, will be absent from question time today due to budget arrangements. In Senator Cormann's absence, I will represent the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Special Minister of State, the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 18 14:00 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to Senator Fifield, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Under the Turnbull government gross debt has increased to a record half-a-trillion dollars, net debt has doubled and net debt as a proportion of the economy is growing more rapidly than almost every other advanced economy. Can the minister confirm that under the Turnbull government net debt is twice as much as it was when the Liberal-National government was elected on a platform of reducing debt? 14:01 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Keneally. Can I remind colleagues that, in 2013, when we formed office, we inherited a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating economy. The budget bottom line at that time was deteriorating by billions of dollars each and every week. I'm very pleased to report for all colleagues that the growth outlook today is stronger and employment growth is good. Again, let me hark back a little. Under Labor we were on a spending growth trajectory of four per cent above inflation, on average, year on year. The very good news for the Australian people is that this government has more than halved that. Spending growth, according to the last budget and the last half-yearly update, is 1.9 per cent. Spending as a share of GDP when we came in to government was headed to 26.5 per cent within the decade, and rising. Now, that is below 25 per cent according to the last budget. But the fact that seems to elude those opposite is that, when you inherit a budget position which is in deficit, when you inherit significant debt and when you have spending locked in that manifests itself in the out years, you will see an increase in debt. And, obviously, as long as there are budget deficits and a government is borrowing, debt will increase. That is significantly a function of what we inherited from those opposite. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I realise everyone is happy to be back but I ask that there be silence in the chamber. Senator Keneally, a supplementary question. 14:03 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales In an article in this morning's Age entitled 'Costello savages budget strategy', former Treasurer Peter Costello says in relation to the Turnbull government's fiscal strategy: It means that future generations will be paying interest on the debt that's been run up on their behalf over the last decade, and they will probably be paying for the rest of their lives. Is former Treasurer Peter Costello correct? 14:03 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues on this side when I say that we are incredibly fond of former Treasurer Costello. I happened to work for him for the best part of eight years. Let me tell you something: he never once said over those eight years, 'You should listen to the Australian Labor Party on economic policy.' Not once. Interestingly, in the 14-plus years since he has been Treasurer, he has never offered to the community the view that we should listen to the approach of the Australian Labor Party. The point that Mr Costello was making is one that we agree with, and that is: Labor governments increase debt. Labor governments lock in for the long term unsustainable spending and force coalition governments to bring the budget back into balance, which we will do. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question. 14:05 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I'm fond of Senator Fifield, but I don't think he is correct. I'd like to hear him say whether he thinks former Treasurer Costello is correct, so I again refer to the former Treasurer, who says in relation to the Turnbull government's fiscal strategy, 'You are putting a burden on future generations.' Is the former Treasurer correct, and how is it fair to force future generations to pay for the Turnbull government's $80 billion handout to big business? Senator Scullion interjecting— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Scullion and Senator Wong, please lead by example from the front bench. 14:05 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria You could be forgiven, from listening to Senator Keneally's question, for believing that the Australian Labor Party bequeathed to this government in 2013 a position of no net debt. No, that is what the coalition bequeathed to the Australian Labor Party in 2007. The Australian Labor Party bequeathed to the Australian people and this government a position of high government debt and a budget that was in deficit. We have set about systematically repairing the budget. You will find out tonight what the updated forecasts are. But Mr Costello is making two key points. One is: it always falls to a coalition government to pay off what Labor leave. That's the first point. The second point is: don't listen to what Labor say; look at what they did. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 19 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:07 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the President of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of New South Wales, the Hon. John Ajaka MLC. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite President Ajaka to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Ajaka was then seated accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 19 14:07 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government's employment services program, jobactive, is helping Australians into work? 14:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Bushby, for your question. On this side of the chamber, those of us who are part of the Turnbull government believe in getting Australians into jobs. We also know how you do this. You need to set up a strong economic framework so that businesses can prosper, grow and create jobs. In 2017 the economy created in excess of 1,000 jobs a day. Those of us on this side of the chamber, part of the Turnbull government, are all about improving the lives of Australians, and in creating a thousand jobs a day we're ensuring that more Australians and more families are able to work. But we will continue to take action to ensure that the Australian economy is able to create jobs and we get more people off welfare and into work. In fact, recently, the government's jobactive program, which commenced on 1 July 2015, reached an important milestone: more than one million placements in jobs for Australian workers. Both Australian employers and those seeking a job benefit from this program. The jobs figures under the Turnbull government show we are delivering on our promise of, as we've said, jobs and growth. We are delivering on our promise to grow the economy and ensure that we put in place the right economic framework so that businesses can prosper, grow and create jobs. And the milestone of one million job placements by jobactive is evidence that the Turnbull government's policies when it comes to job creation are working. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bushby, on a supplementary question. 14:09 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania What benefits do programs like jobactive and the government's other employment initiatives deliver for the Australian community? 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, those of us on this side of the chamber, we are all about delivering economic growth and ensuring businesses are able to prosper and grow, and create jobs. We put in place policies that connect people who need to get into work with the jobs that the economy is creating. On this side of the chamber we know getting more Australians into work benefits us all. It increases economic growth, it means individuals are earning an income rather than relying on welfare and, of course, the dignity of work sets a good example for the next generation of Australians. Of course, on this side of the chamber we have a number of policies that are specifically targeted to groups to actually acknowledge the special needs of those groups; for example, Youth Jobs PaTH—getting our youth off welfare and into work, giving them the skills they need, getting their foot in the door and getting them a job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bushby on a final supplementary question. 14:11 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Is the minister aware of any threats to the Turnbull government's efforts to get Australians into work? 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well, it becomes clearer and clearer every day in terms of those on the other side. There is a very clear alternative between those of us here on this side, part of the Turnbull government, and those on the other side. On this side of the chamber, as we have always said, we will use every possible lever that we have to get Australians into work. We know those on the other side are more focused on keeping Australians on welfare. Labor constantly talk down our strong economic management. They belittle the economy's creation of 1,000 jobs a day in 2017. Colleagues, we'd all know, they routinely attack business. They attack employers, those people who are out there doing the hard yards and creating jobs. On this side of the chamber we are committed to jobs and growth—growing businesses, ensuring that they prosper, creating jobs and getting more Australians off welfare. Taxation 20 14:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, Senator Fifield. When asked on ABC's 7.30 program last night about the Turnbull government's ability to persuade the Australian public that cutting company tax is a good idea, former Treasurer Peter Costello said, 'Somebody has to speak for the individual wage and salary earner as well. These are people paying 47c on $200,000. I think those forgotten people also ought to be in the calculation of the government at the moment.' Does the minister agree with former Treasurer Costello that Australians earning over $200,000 a year are Australia's 'forgotten' people? Senator Abetz interjecting— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Abetz and Senator Wong, I like to be able to hear the question as well as the answer. 14:13 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your question. It has long been my practice to allow Mr Costello to speak for himself, which he is well able to do. The Treasurer has already indicated that this government's focus, when it is in a position to do so, is to give tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. That is what is the focus of the government is. Yes, we also have made very clear that we want to legislate the second tranche of our company tax cuts. Something that I find very curious is, when those opposite talk about the company tax cut package that they oppose, they always use a figure of $60-something billion and now they talk about $80 billion. What is implicit in that is that those opposite want to repeal company tax cuts for small business, because company tax cuts for small business are embedded in that figure. If that's not the case— Senator McAllister 121628 My point of order is on relevance. My question went to whether or not people earning over $200,000 are forgotten people, not to corporate tax cuts. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, I will remind the minister of the bulk of the question. There was a reference to corporate tax cuts in the question; the bulk of the question was as outlined. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I thought there was a reference in the first sentence—I'm happy to be corrected. As I've said, Senator Wong, I'll remind the minister of the bulk of the question. Senator FIFIELD D2I In referencing company tax cuts I'm endeavouring to do full justice to Senator McAllister's question, but, Mr President, I take your admonishment and come back to personal income tax relief. The role of government is to strike a balance, and what we're seeking to do is to grow the economy, to increase employment and to put ourselves in a position where we can get back to a budget in balance and where we can start to repay the debt that was commenced by those opposite and which was embedded in the forward estimates. Our focus unapologetically when we're in a position to do so will be on income tax relief for low- and middle- income earners. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question. 14:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Former Treasurer Costello has said in relation to the behaviour of Australia's banks: 'We have seen at senior executive and board levels failures of governments. There will be a reckoning with senior executives and probably with the boards of the banks, who will be held accountable, and so there should be.' Is the former Treasurer correct? Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Is that a supplementary question? 14:16 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I heard Senator Macdonald behind me ask if that's a supplementary question, because I don't think it directly relates to the primary question. Nevertheless, we share with all colleagues in this place concern about the activities that have been identified in the banking and finance industry. That's why the government have for quite some time taken strong action, even pre-dating the royal commission, to give stronger powers to ASIC, to give more money to ASIC and to introduce the BEAR regime for banking executives. So absolutely we share the concern of Mr Costello and people in this place and around the community that banking standards need to lift. We along with colleagues here and in the other place intend to ensure that that happens. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question. 14:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Given that even former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello recognises Australian banks ought to be held accountable, why is the Turnbull government burdening future generations with a $17 billion handout? 14:17 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Australian banks pay company tax, like all other eligible enterprises. We don't have a separate banking company tax regime, and that's not the intention of this government. We do, as you know, have in place a levy on those institutions, which we think is appropriate. But, as has been made very clear by the Treasurer and by the finance minister, we are looking to have a consistent company tax regime. What we want to have is an internationally competitive company tax regime. We were once about second or third best when it came to a competitive company tax regime. That is no longer the case. We need to amend our tax law so that we can continue to attract investment and to be competitive. Taxation 21 14:18 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Fifield. Minister, our profession of politics is at an all-time low because many Australians feel our political and economic system is failing them. They say it's rigged in favour of big, powerful corporations that donate to political parties and call the shots in this place. Many of these big corporations continue to rort our tax system. Minister, I note that Australia is now set to become the world's largest exporter of LNG, yet Australia collects one of the lowest levels of tax from the gas it owns. Qatar, Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, take in two to three times the gas tax that we do. Is the minister aware that many gas projects owned by multinational corporations in Australia have not paid a cent in resource rent tax to the Australian people, who own the resources, and, given they have clocked up $240 billion in tax credits, are unlikely to for decades to come, if ever? 14:20 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria As tempting as it is on occasion to take at face value the assertions that Senator Whish-Wilson makes, I won't because I don't present myself as a resource industry taxation expert. Senator Whish-Wilson did commence his question in relation to tax avoidance by implying that the government had not taken action in this area. Can I remind Senator Whish-Wilson and colleagues that we have taken action by implementing a multinational anti-avoidance law to stop multinationals artificially avoiding a taxable presence in Australia. We have introduced a new diverted profits tax to prevent multinationals shifting profits overseas. We signed the OECD multilateral instrument on 7 June 2017. We've doubled the penalties for multinationals avoiding tax. We've increased the penalties for breaches of tax reporting obligations by multinationals. We've implemented the OECD recommendations for country-by-country reporting to give the ATO greater access to multinational transfer pricing information— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Fifield! Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I acknowledge that there was a little bit of preamble in my question, but the question did directly ask: was the minister aware that these companies had paid no resource rent tax and had clocked up $240 billion in tax credits? The PRESIDENT I0Q I have previously ruled, as have predecessors in this role, that I cannot instruct a minister on how to answer a question. Senator Whish-Wilson, your question did have a preamble. It was slightly more than brief, but entirely within order. The minister is being directly relevant to the question you asked. Senator FIFIELD D2I Just to complete what I was saying before about the anti-tax avoidance measures the government has taken: we've also aligned Australia's transfer pricing rules with the latest OECD guidelines since July 2016. ATO action has already collected over $1.5 billion from additional liabilities raised against large multinationals. Australia is also continuing its strong international leadership on the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. This government has been extremely active when it comes to ensuring that corporate taxpayers pay what they should. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question. 14:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, today the Greens released a costed policy to introduce a Commonwealth royalty of 10 per cent to put a floor under the PRRT so that gas giants no longer get to indefinitely defer their tax obligations and essentially get their tax for free. Minister, you adopted the Greens policy of a bank levy at the last budget, and you acknowledged that in your response to Labor's last question. Will you now adopt this sensible position and fix the rort that is the PRRT and if not, why not? (Time expired) 14:23 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for your supplementary question. I will leave matters of tax architecture to the Treasurer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question. 14:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, the PBO costing showed a 10 per cent royalty would raise $15 billion over the coming decade. That would go a long way towards funding a handy raise in the Newstart allowance. Minister, I doubt that you or I could live on a meagre $40 a day. So why does your government lay out the red carpet for multinational oil and gas companies—some of the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful companies on this planet—and allow them to take out resources for nothing, but refuse to lift the Newstart allowance? 14:24 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I'll treat the first part of Senator Whish-Wilson's question as a monologue rather than a question. Senator Whish-Wilson did touch on the issue of Newstart. Let me make clear that I think, for anyone who finds themselves out of work, it is an extremely difficult situation which none of us would want to be in. We do have Newstart as a transitional measure to assist people back into work. The good news is that around two-thirds of those who are granted Newstart find themselves exiting that and in work within 12 months. One of the reasons why we have one of the most generous social safety nets in Australia is that we do run a strong economy and we are able to fund it from the budget. (Time expired) Schools 22 14:25 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Would the minister advise the Senate about what the review to achieve excellence in Australian schools, led by Mr David Gonski SC, found in relation to Australia's schools performance? 14:25 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question and for her enduring interest and commitment to excellence across Australia's school education system. Indeed, it was in the pursuit of excellence that this government asked Mr David Gonski and a panel of educators, principals and experts to come together to look at how it is that we can best turn around what has been a stagnation, a decline in performance, in many areas and ensure that we have true excellence and true delivery of growth in student performance in return for the record and growing investment that Australian taxpayers and parents are making in their children's education. The review did indeed paint a gloomy picture in terms of performance over a recent period of time, that over the last 15 years Australian student performance has dropped from fourth in the world for reading to 16th, from 11th in the world for mathematics to 25th and from eighth in science to 14th, according to the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment. Notwithstanding the efforts of many hardworking school leaders, principals, teachers and students themselves, there are too many schools in which the Gonski panel identified from research and evidence that students are cruising or coasting rather than being extended to their full capability; that our average performance across school systems is down; and that our lowest achievers are performing at even lower levels and our higher achievers not at such high levels. Yet over the 10 years from 2006, while Australia's GDP grew by 67 per cent, federal investment in education grew by 117 per cent. It is very clear that we have had a sustained period, under governments of different persuasions, of record growing investment in school education, and that compared to other OECD countries that often outperform us Australia spends more on our schooling and yet is receiving poorer results. That's why we committed to undertake this review to identify how we get the best bang for our buck—how we get the best outcome for Australian students. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question. 14:27 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Can the minister inform the Senate about the Turnbull government's response to the review? 14:27 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Turnbull government has committed to and accepted the priority recommendations of the review, particularly the review's findings that we must deliver on foundation skills in the early years of education—the basics of literacy and numeracy—and ensure that they are established in Australian schoolchildren, ideally, by age 8. We've equally committed to and accepted the recommendation that there ought to be a better and more consistent assessment process and tool linked to providing specific guidance and advice to help teachers better target their teaching and better track the progress of students, ensuring that parents, as well as schools, have regular, clear, consistent and updated advice on how their students are learning and how that benchmarks against expected outcomes for those students. But there ought to be better incentives to keep highly-skilled, accomplished and lead teachers in our classrooms and in the profession, mentoring others. Ultimately, we ought to seek to extend the skills of every student to their maximum capability so that not only do we have fewer underachievers but we have more overachievers achieving even higher— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Would the minister please inform the Senate about the comments of key education stakeholders and the states and territories on their views, and the government's response to them? 14:29 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We have been very pleased that many representatives of principals, teachers and parents have endorsed the findings of the review. I acknowledge that in the gallery today there are many school students—no doubt hard at work here in Canberra learning about civics education—as well as their hardworking teachers and support staff and, possibly, some parents. This review and its recommendations have received endorsement from all aspects of the non-government education sector; from principal bodies, particularly the Primary Principals' Association, who endorsed the focus on principal autonomy; from the Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Parents Council; and from Professor Geoff Masters of the Australian Council of Educational Research, who described the review as a breakthrough—particularly praising the focus on the proposed new classroom assessment and teaching tool. Ultimately, David Gonski and I briefed state and territory education ministers in Adelaide last Friday, and I'm pleased they responded positively and are committed to working constructively to get better outcomes for all Australian students, and a better return on our— (Time expired) Medicare 23 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. In relation to the government backflip on the Medicare levy, the Minister for Finance said: What do people expect us to do, just to keep it on the books without any prospect to actually collect the money in practice? That just does not make sense. Given the Turnbull government's plan to axe the energy supplement has no prospect of passing this parliament, will the Turnbull government now abandon its unfair attack on the two million Australians, including 400,000 age pensioners, who depend on the energy supplement? 14:31 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I thank Senator Farrell for the question. The Turnbull government are committed to ensuring Australia's welfare system provides appropriate support to those in need while remaining sustainable for future generations. This measure is one that is very simple: we have repealed the carbon tax and so we are repealing the carbon tax compensation. It is simply not sustainable to continue to compensate people who have not yet even entered the welfare system for a tax that no longer exists. Had the carbon tax not been repealed in 2014, it would have caused long-term increases in electricity prices. When the carbon tax was repealed on 1 July 2014, the Australian— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Fierravanti-Wells; I've got Senator Farrell on a point of order. Senator Farrell I0N Yes; thank you, Mr President. That's all very interesting, but this question was about the energy supplement and the government's intention to abolish it. Can you please direct the minister to answer the question? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, you know I can't direct the minister how to answer a question. Listening carefully to the answer, I interpret the minister is talking directly about the topic raised and is directly relevant to—Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU We asked about the backflip on the Medicare levy— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Do you have a point of order, or are you just— Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is on direct relevance. You really do have an issue, don't you? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order around the chamber! Senator Wong, please address your comments to me. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 And he's getting worse! Senator Wong 00AOU Seriously! The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, please direct your comments to me. Senator Wong 00AOU I'm looking at you; I would much rather look at you. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald! I have asked Senator Wong—the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate does have the right to raise another point of order, and I'm giving her that— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, I'm asking Senator Wong to address her comments to me. Senator Wong 00AOU If you would like me to rephrase the point, I'd ask you, if you are able, after question time to come back to the opposition on how it is that an answer about the carbon tax is directly relevant to a question about keeping a measure on the books in the context of the Medicare levy? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I'm happy to come back. I took notes on the question and that the final part of it referred to the maintenance of the energy supplement. I took Senator Fierravanti-Wells to be directly talking about that in her answer. If I'm incorrect, I will come back to the chamber, but I've interpreted— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Can I rule before the interjections start again? Senator Fierravanti-Wells was talking about a payment and the reason for its placement, removal and maintenance in all those scenarios, and I rule it as directly relevant even if it's not in the terms that the questioner would ask. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t It doesn't surprise me to hear that interjection; you don't even know what your position is on this measure. Let me take you back: in their 2016 election document, the Labor Party published a list of 30 measures that they would reverse in government. It's a detailed list, but there's not one mention of reversing the decision by the government to end the carbon tax compensation of the energy supplement. After the election, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that this document would be their consistent position. Which is it? The member for Jagajaga says they're against it. The member for Maribyrnong says they're going to bank it and spend it. Only in the minds of the opposition could you have both. Meanwhile, the shadow Treasurer is sitting there wondering if he has a $1 billion hole in his books. Therefore, as I have said, had the carbon tax not been repealed in 2014, it would have caused long-term increases in electricity prices. When the carbon tax was repealed on 1 July 2014, the Australian— (Time expired) Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald and Senator Wong, I didn't hear who that was but I don't think it was the person referred to. Senator Farrell, a supplementary question? 14:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I do have one. Given the Minister for Finance's statement, does the Turnbull government intend to give up on its plan to force Australians to work until they're 70 by making Australia's pension age older than it is in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand? 14:36 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Thank you, Senator Farrell, for that. When the age pension was introduced, the average male life expectancy was 55 years. To ensure the pension is sustainable, the government supported the move, under Labor, to a higher pension age of 67 in 2009. While not yet legislated, increasing the age pension qualification age to 70 by 2035 remains government policy. Labor's measure was, and is, to increase the pension age to 67 by 2023. It's laughable that those opposite, who extended the pension age, because it was responsible reform, now do not want to keep the pension sustainable. You were the ones who put this in legislation. We supported you, so don't hypocritically come in here and ask the sort of stupid, silly question you just asked. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left and right. Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question? 14:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I do have one and it's not silly or stupid. How is it fair to force Australians to work until they're 70 and to cut $365 a year from single age pensions, and $550 a year from couples, while handing out $80 billion to big business? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators to maintain silence during questions so I can hear them. 14:37 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Since the coalition came to government in 2013, pensions have increased by more than $99 per fortnight for singles and by more than $149 per fortnight for couples, and pensions will continue to rise twice a year. The age pension is paid at the highest fortnightly rate of income support and has the most generous indexation arrangements in Australia's social security system. In 2015, the government made a decision to rebalance the age pension asset test to make the system better targeted and more sustainable. The asset test thresholds were also raised, making it more generous for people with modest levels of assets. Ninety per cent of pensioners are better off or have no change in their pensions under these measures. And you banked those savings at the 2016— (Time expired) Australian Defence Force 25 14:39 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Coming from a garrison city, as I do, I have the honour of asking our energetic and effective defence minister a question. I ask the minister, can she advise the Senate how the Turnbull government's investment in Australia's Defence Force capability will benefit regional Australia and particularly my own home state of Queensland? 14:39 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is fabulous to see Senator Macdonald roaring around the corridors on his scooter as he pursues his recuperation and rehabilitation. I think he has driven it all the way down from Ayr, if I'm not mistaken. I particularly want to thank the senator for his question because his efforts in advocating for the interests of Queenslanders, particularly in regional Australia, are tireless, and I can assure the senator and the Senate that Defence's positive impact on both the Australian and the Queensland economy is certainly going to continue to increase. That's thanks to the very significant $200 billion investment that this government is making in defence capability in this country over the next decade. That includes long overdue investment in both bases and facilities, many of which, as you would know, are in regional Australia. Queensland is a critical state when it comes to the defence of our nation. It is home to over 23,000 Defence personnel and a large number of key operational and support bases, many of which are close to the part of Queensland from which Senator Macdonald hails. As we bring into service new and larger capabilities—whether they're developments likes the boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle or the new offshore patrol vessels—we will upgrade facilities across the country. Our work will continue on the implementation of the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative, which is a $2.25 billion investment in Central and North Queensland. These projects will create enormous opportunities and flow-on benefits for local businesses right across Queensland, as well as hundreds of new jobs. I'm very proud, as the Minister for Defence, to also be delivering the Local Industry Capability Plan. It is an initiative that will ensure local businesses and local trades have the best opportunity possible to get involved in these projects, to compete for the work and to deliver locally in terms of support to defence. 14:41 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Can I thank the minister for that very informative answer. You mentioned the local capability defence arrangements. As I mentioned, I come from the garrison city of Townsville. Could you indicate how the Turnbull government's investment in defence capability will ensure local businesses achieve opportunities in the area of defence procurement, local businesses and local workers? (Time expired) 14:42 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is a significant investment in defence capability and facilities in North Queensland, and the Local Industry Capability Plan, or the LICP, ensures that local businesses have the best opportunity to share in that investment. Some of the examples that I can provide to Senator Macdonald and the chamber—which includes the Local Industry Capability Plan—are the $12 million upgrade for the explosive ordnance depot at Mount Stuart, which Senator Macdonald attended with me some months ago for its announcement. There is also the $24 million upgrade for a mid-term refresh of the Townsville Field Training Area and, similarly, a $67 million program for a mid-term refresh at RAAF Base Townsville in said garrison city. Then there is the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative, and indeed over $300 million to prepare HMAS Cairns to support the basing of the increased number of the new and larger offshore patrol vessels. All of those have a Local Industry Capability Plan attached to them. 14:43 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I thank the minister again for that information. I know the minister is often in Cairns and Townsville and I know the minister is also in Rockhampton often. Could the minister outline what she is doing to ensure that local businesses in the Central Queensland area also get the opportunity to benefit from these Turnbull government investments? 14:43 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Indeed, last week I was in Rockhampton with the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, to discuss local industry involvement as per the Local Industry Capability Plan with the Shoalwater Bay Training Area remediation project and the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative. The managing contractor for the Shoalwater Bay Training Area remediation project has developed a Local Industry Capability Plan which will ensure local businesses have the opportunity to take advantage of the work arising from this project. Through the implementation of the Local Industry Capability Plan approach, the managing contractor for the Shoalwater Bay remediation has committed to sourcing 80 per cent of its construction contractors from the Livingstone and Rockhampton regions—let me repeat that: 80 per cent from the local regions around the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. This absolutely confirms that the government's LICP initiative is creating local jobs and investment near our key defence facilities and enabling those local trades to strengthen themselves as well. Education 26 14:44 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland My question is for Senator Payne, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Last week Minister Bishop confirmed 495 scholarships will be handed out to 22 African countries at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $31.8 million. It has been reported that these scholarships are all expenses paid. Can the minister detail whether or not these scholarships include living expenses such as a weekly income, accommodation, education or other related expenses? 14:45 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales In response to the back end of Senator Anning's question, I can indicate that the expenses that are covered by the Australia Awards include the costs of travel, of tuition and of student health cover and a contribution to living expenses for the individual recipient. What I would also like to draw the senator's attention to and the Senate's attention to are the many benefits that the Australia Awards bring for Australia and for the recipients' home countries, which includes investment, job creation and wealth generation. The recipients overwhelmingly gain skills, knowledge and practical experience that help to drive economic and social development in their home countries, which, if I was to put my hat on as Minister for Defence, also contributes to security and stability in the region's communities from which they are drawn. The education, training and research exchanges are central to building and enhancing Australia's engagement and influence both in the region and globally. The awards recipients—and there are many who have gone on to hold very senior positions in their own nations—develop a very strong affinity with the Australian people and a very strong and positive opinion of Australia. They showcase Australia and the Australian education sector, as I'm sure the Minister for Education, Minister Birmingham, would acknowledge, in a globally competitive marketplace. And let's not forget that international education is our third largest export and our largest services export, contributing a total of $30.8 billion in the last financial year and supporting over 130,000 full-time jobs across our nation, across our major cities and in key regional cities. They are jobs for all working-age Australians. This year, the provision from the Australian government is 4,000 long- and short-term awards to emerging leaders from more than 60 countries in Asia, the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning, a supplementary question. 14:47 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland Given that our rural and regional students have access to few scholarships, the main being the $24.1 million Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships program, can the minister explain why the government has prioritised funding for educating Africans over rural Aussie kids? 14:47 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I would like to draw on the expertise of my colleague Minister Birmingham, but, if one began with youth allowance and HECS in and of themselves as contributions that support students from regional Australia, that would be a good place to start in the conversation. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and I think that is the most important aspect to consider here. I've outlined the contribution and the engagement that Australia Awards recipients make in their own countries as a result of Australia's engagement, and the total cost of the program over the year 2017-18 is $320 million. Over 86 per cent of it is also directed to the Indo-Pacific region. This is an important area of key focus for Australia. It's an important area in which we should be investing in people. People-to-people relationships that can be developed through the work of the Australia Awards are essential to our standing in the region. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning, final supplementary question. 14:48 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland Noting the recipients of those scholarships are expected to return to their own country after completion of their education—if they don't overstay their visas—can you explain the benefit to the Australian taxpayer for providing these scholarships with their hard-earned tax dollars? 14:49 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Anning for the supplementary question. I think I have taken the opportunity to outline to the Senate a number of the very positive outcomes from the Australia Awards program, but I would also note it is a condition of the student visa subclass 500 that Australia Awards recipients don't remain in Australia following completion or termination of their scholarship. The Australia Awards recipients are further excluded from applying for return to Australia for anything other than short-term visits for a minimum of two years following completion or termination of their scholarships. Let me outline some of the most notable activities of the alumni from the Indo-Pacific region alone. The Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Mr Henry Puna, is a recipient of an Australia Award; the Chief Executive Officer of the Pacific Disability Forum, Mr Macanawai, from Fiji, similarly; the Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection in Indonesia similarly; and the President of Kiribati similarly. That is just a short example. (Time expired) Australian Signals Directorate 27 14:50 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. In an article entitled 'Let us spy on Aussies', The Daily Telegraph revealed that the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs has proposed, in a letter to the secretary of Defence, expanding the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate to enable it to spy on Australian citizens. When asked about the report, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, said, 'There is no plan.' The Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, has said in relation to the proposal, 'There is a case to be made.' As the minister responsible for the Australian Signals Directorate, can the minister tell the Senate which position reflects the government's position: Minister Bishop's or Minister Dutton's? 14:51 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Kitching for her question. I can confirm, as has been stated on the public record, that there is no proposal before the government to expand the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate to enable it to collect intelligence on Australians or covertly access their private data. Indeed, in relation to the story, which contained a number of fallacious and incorrect pieces of material, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs and the Director of the Australian Signals Directorate issued a statement, on 29 April, very clearly outlining the position in regard to ASD's powers, and I think it is appropriate to put that on the record. They said: In relation to today's media claim, there is no proposal to increase the ASD's powers to collect intelligence on Australians or to covertly access their private data. ASD's cyber security function is being enhanced under reforms agreed by the Government last year in response to the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review. The Parliament has already passed legislation establishing ASD as an independent statutory agency within the Defence portfolio on 28 March 2018 in response to this recommendation. The cyber security function entails protecting Australians from cyber-enabled crime and cyber-attacks, and not collecting intelligence on Australians. These are two distinct functions, technically and operationally. In the ever changing world of cyber security as officials we should explore all options to protect Australians and the Australian economy. We would never provide advice to Government suggesting that ASD be allowed to have unchecked data collection on Australians – this can only ever occur within the law, and under very limited and controlled circumstances. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a supplementary question. 14:52 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I take note of the minister's response to the primary question, but does the minister believe there is a case to be made for extending the power of the ASD? 14:52 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think that those who are observers of this area of government policy would know that the broad and far-reaching Independent Intelligence Review considered the role of ASD. ASD, as a result of that process, has been established—and this will take effect from 1 July—as a statutory agency within the Department of Defence. That review addressed a number of ASD's roles and, indeed, a number of roles of intelligence agencies more broadly. I, certainly, and the government are satisfied with where that has landed and with the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs. Those matters were dealt with through the review. The PRESIDENT I0Q A final supplementary question, Senator Kitching. 14:53 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Can the minister rule out any changes which would see the remit of the Australian Signals Directorate broadened to allow increased spying on Australian citizens? 14:53 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I believe I've already done that, so: yes. Agriculture Industry 28 14:54 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Minister, my home state of Queensland is approximately 84 per cent agricultural land. This includes the Darling Downs and Maranoa region, which I represent in part, which has a diverse agricultural sector ranging from cattle to cotton and wheat. Can the minister update the Senate on any recent developments that may affect this more than $13 billion sector in Queensland? 14:54 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. I know Senator O'Sullivan not only is a strong advocate for farming in Queensland but also has spent much of the last five weeks or so travelling through those parts of Queensland that are particularly affected by drought. Last week, unfortunately, the Queensland parliament passed laws which will restrict agricultural development in Queensland. They passed them with almost 100 per cent opposition from the Queensland farming sector. They passed them without a regulation impact statement. They passed them without consulting the Queensland agricultural sector itself. Indeed, their own parliamentary committee accepted that the government had not consulted with the Queensland farming sector before those laws came in. Queensland farmers are deadset against these laws for a range of reasons, but one that's particularly pertinent at the moment is their ability to manage and respond to drought. As I mentioned, Senator O'Sullivan knows well how much of Queensland at the moment is in the grip of drought. Some areas have not had proper rain for a good seven or eight years. One grazier from Charleville, Scott Sargood, has said: Mulga tree is like our insurance policy—they eat the grass, they eat the younger mulga, and if it still hasn't rained you push the mulga over so they can reach it … As a result of these laws, Scott is being quoted $10,000 just to apply for a development application to be able to thin the mulga to respond to drought. The Queensland parliament is passing laws that require farmers to spend $10,000 while they are in drought to respond to that drought. That is why Queensland farmers are as one against these laws. That is why, at beef week this week in Rockhampton, the farming sector will unite against these laws and against the Queensland government that is no longer listening to producers; it's listening to protesters. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question. 14:56 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Is the minister aware of what farmers are saying about their own personal experiences and the impact that these laws are having on them? 14:56 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland You would think that for laws that impact on almost all of Queensland—as Senator O'Sullivan outlined in his earlier question, at least 84 per cent of Queensland is affected by this—the Queensland government would actually talk to and listen to those people who manage that part of the state. Many farmers have provided evidence that these laws will strip enormous amounts of wealth and prosperity from them without a cent or a dollar of compensation. It's a property right taken from them without any compensation from the Queensland government. Cattle farmers Blair and Josie Angus from Moranbah in Central Queensland say they will have $3.3 million wiped off their balance sheet. As Blair said: 'The last surviving manufacturing industry is food manufacturing. If these laws continue, it's goodbye grass-fed beef.' The Anguses want to build a meatworks in Moranbah and that'll be put at risk by these laws. Beef and crop farmer Peter Thompson makes the point these laws: … will lead to erosion because we won't be able to manage scrub. The laws won't even necessarily meet their objective because they don't have any understanding of how to manage the land. It's why farmers are against these laws, and it's why people who support farmers should be against them too. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 14:58 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Minister, are there any external factors influencing these harsh new laws? 14:58 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I think it is instructive to get to the bottom of the origin and genesis of these laws. Senator Watt 245759 Yes, it's called an election. That's where it's from! Senator CANAVAN 245212 Yes, it is from the election. I'll take that interjection, because it is from the election. In fact, these laws were announced on a weekend just before how-to-vote cards were finalised in the Queensland election. It could be just a coincidence or it could be, as Senator Watt has just revealed, that it was all about the election. It was not about the environment, and it was not about protecting the Great Barrier Reef; it was about the election. We just heard it from Senator Watt himself. It was all about the election. It was all about getting preferences from the Greens, not about protecting the environment, not about protecting the Great Barrier Reef and certainly not about supporting Queensland farmers. Queenslanders do still want to support their farming sector. They want to see it to grow. They're proud of their beef sector. They're proud of beef week this week, which is getting people from all over the world involved. For the Labor Party, it's a long time since that tree at Barcaldine, and it's a long time since the 1890s—they've left them in the dark. (Time expired) Hospitals 29 14:59 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McKenzie. In my home state of New South Wales, the Turnbull government's cut to public hospital funding of $215 million is equivalent to 322,000 emergency department visits, 59,000 cataract extractions or 35,000 births. Does the $715 million cut to Australian public hospitals remain government policy? 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Cameron, for your question because it allows me to outline for the Senate once again—we've done this a couple of times and I'm happy to do it again—the record investment that our government is putting into hospital funding through the hospital agreements with states right throughout the Federation. Since I was last able to update the Senate, we've had a few newcomers on board. The Western Australian Labor government has seen the light, the ACT Labor government has seen the light, the Northern Territory Labor government has seen the light and we've seen South Australia—thanks to a change of government in South Australia—Tasmania and New South Wales sign up to our national agreements. This will see record funding delivered to each and every state and territory government, year on year, as far as the eye can see. Senator Cameron AI6 Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question is: does the $715 million cut to Australian public hospitals remain government policy? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron— Senator Cameron AI6 I don't want the rhetoric. I want to know: is the $715 million cut still there? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, you have one opportunity to restate the question, maybe, but not two. The minister is being directly relevant to the issue of funding of public hospitals, which was the question you asked. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I know you like to frame things as cuts, and you did the same with education. It's actually not the case. On 9 February, New South Wales and Western Australia signed the heads of agreement on public hospital funding and health reform and accepted the Commonwealth's offer. What that will mean in your home state, Senator Cameron and all other New South Wales senators, is more services in hospitals, more primary health care and actually assuring those not just in Sydney but right throughout New South Wales of funding going as far as the eye can see. I'm very happy to go to the specifics of the New South Wales agreement and go through, line by line, the increase in funding that your particular state will receive, thanks to signing up to the agreement. I note, Senator Cameron, that you are not talking about what provision— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, a supplementary question. 15:02 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The Australian Medical Association says: The current funding formula will doom our public hospitals to fail, and patients will suffer as a result. How does the Turnbull government intend to correct the current funding formula? 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Cameron, I promised to give you the figures for the record investment from the Commonwealth government into New South Wales public hospital funding, and I'm very happy to share them with you. From 2017-18, there will be an annual growth of $289 million. In 2018-19, there will be $330 million of annual growth. In 2019-20, there will be $345.9 million worth of annual growth. In 2020-21— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, on a point of order? Senator Cameron AI6 Yes, Mr President, on relevance. I've asked particularly about the AMA indicating that the formula will doom public hospitals: I'd like an answer on the AMA's position. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, you know I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. I consider the minister to be directly relevant to the material of the question. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Senator Cameron, I've outlined once again the record investment in New South Wales public hospitals. So that means allied health; that means nurses; that means more services to New South Welsh men and women over the forward estimates. You might want to claim— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 15:04 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Why is the Turnbull government leaving patients to suffer in doomed public hospitals while giving an $80 billion handout to big business? 15:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I completely reject the premise of your question. When I visit New South Wales hospitals out in the regions I'm not seeing what you're seeing. What I'm seeing is doctors working hard, nurses working hard and hospital administrators working hard with the record investment that the New South Wales government has recognised is something that's going to deliver a record number of services into the New South Wales health system. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron on a point of order. Senator Cameron AI6 I simply asked: why is the government giving an $80 billion handout to big business, while the AMA is saying hospitals are doomed? The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm going to take this opportunity before I rule on that: latitude is granted to restate terms of questions but not to simply repeat questions. The minister is directly relevant. I ask senators to keep that in mind. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm really proud of our government and our record commitment for the national reform funding agreements that so many of your state colleagues have recognised have value. I'm sorry: if the AMA is saying that it's not going to work out, why has Premier McGowan signed up, why has the ACT government signed up and why has the Northern Territory Labor Party government signed up to the record funding? Senator Fifield D2I I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Economy, Taxation 30 15:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and McAllister today relating to the 2018-19 Budget. The opposition asked two very simple questions of Mr Fifield. The first of those questions related to the issue of the government's debt levels. We asked: has the debt level doubled over the course of this government? Of course, we got no answer. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Yes, we did. Senator FARRELL I0N No, we never got an answer. Senator Colbeck interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I don't know what NAPLAN's got to do with this, Senator Colbeck, but we got no answer on the question that we were asking. We were asking about debt. What Mr Fifield should have said in answer to the question about this government's doubling of debt is that gross debt in this country is projected to reach $684 billion in the medium term. I will repeat that, in case members of the government didn't hear the level of debt: the projections are that, under this government, in the medium term, debt is going to reach $684 billion. We asked a second question of Senator Fifield. We asked him to comment on a quote by the fellow he used to iron shirts for, as I understand it, before question time, former Treasurer Costello. Mr Costello made an observation of this government's competence in the budget that we are expecting to see tonight. In an article that appeared in The Age today headed 'Costello savages budget strategy', Mr Costello, talking about the debt levels of this government, said: It means that future generations will be paying interest on the debt that is being run up on their behalf over the last decade, and they will probably be paying for the rest of their lives. The probabilities are we will never get back to where we were, you and I will die before that happens. This is an observation by former Treasurer Costello on the level of debt under this government. Former Treasurer Costello has nailed this government. He's nailed them. He knows, just as I'm sure you know, Madam Deputy President, that this government's budget strategy is all wrong. Former Treasurer Costello makes it very clear that under the policies that are currently being prosecuted by this government, in his view, we will not see a return to surplus in his life— Senator Abetz interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I've got my own handwriting here, Senator Abetz. I do have to confess: it is a bit hard to read. I'm not the neatest. But I can read what former Treasurer Costello says about your debt strategy, and he's nailed it. This $80 billion tax cut which you're proposing for big business is simply the wrong strategy. Costello knows it; I suspect even you know it, Senator Abetz. I reckon that the senator sitting next to you, Senator Macdonald—yes, he's just nodded!—knows that this is the wrong strategy. Costello has got it right. The strategy that the Turnbull government is adopting on debt is the wrong one. When our debt is spiralling out of control, what does this government propose to do? It proposes to give an $80 billion tax cut to the big end of town, to big businesses and to the big banks. Seventeen billion dollars of this $80 billion is going to go to the big banks. It's the wrong policy. Costello's got it right. (Time expired) 15:12 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania When the Labor Party try to talk serious economics, as they have been desperately trying to do today, who do they seek to rely on? Is it former Treasurer Wayne Swan? Never. Is it former Labor Treasurer Paul Keating? Never. Who do they have to fall back on to try to get some credibility into their narrative? It is none other than former Treasurer Peter Costello, a person whose budgets were opposed, criticised and condemned year after year by the Australian Labor Party. They now come into this place, only quoting half of what Mr Costello says, pretending to champion that which he has quite rightly pointed out—that is, that Australia does have a debt burden. It is a debt burden that we inherited from the Australian Labor Party, with a trajectory of debt that was baked into projections and legislation, deliberately so, by the Labor-Greens minority government. Let's make no mistake, and our fellow Australians need to know this: but for the Abbott-Turnbull government taking action in relation to the trajectory, today's debt would not be the figure asserted by Senator Farrell but would be $1 trillion, about three times as high. Let's make no mistake about that. We have sought to bring down that trajectory of debt which is a terrible burden on the next generation. It is a legacy that Labor will need to wear around its neck for generations to come. But let's also be very clear: in the 2013 election, Labor asserted to the Australian people that they were going to be good economic managers. They proposed $5 billion worth of cuts, which we accepted on a bipartisan basis. So everybody who voted Labor, Liberal or Nationals voted for $5 billion worth of cuts to expenditure. At the very first attempts for these cuts to be implemented, and ever since, what did the Australian Labor Party do? It deliberately spiked the government's agenda—and, indeed, its own agenda—by hypocritically voting against Labor Party policy in this place to ensure that we could not rein in the budget deficit and the debt as we wanted to, and as Labor themselves solemnly promised to the Australian people. Now, in the short time available let's deal with this nonsense about company tax cuts. If they are interested in quoting previous ministers, I would draw their attention to previous minister, Senator Wong; previous minister, Bill Shorten; previous minister, Chris Bowen; and would-be minister, Dr Andrew Leigh—a whole host of Labor Party luminaries who have said time and time again that the way that you increase employment and, indeed, increase wages, is to engage in company tax cuts. That was Labor policy and Labor narrative, and they know it to be the truth, and yet, sadly, they come into this place with cheap politics, willing people to remain unemployed and to remain on lower wages by denying company tax cuts. The simple fact is that company tax cuts do translate into lower cost items and higher wages, and that, of course, increases the budget capacity of the families of our fellow Australians. The Labor Party knew that; the Liberal Party knows that. Labor tries to implement it; we support them. We seek another tranche—what do Labor do? Hypocritically oppose it, like they opposed their own budget cuts in this place. The only true economic managers are the coalition. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Isn't it pathetic? Senator Abetz coming here, trying to lecture Labor about good economics. A man who was in here cutting wages for workers for his whole career: attacking working people, attacking penalty rates and looking after the big end of town. And he continues to look after the big end of town—$17 billion of tax cuts to the banks. That's the priority for Senator Abetz and that's the priority for the coalition. Let's talk about previous treasurers. Treasurer Swan, the Treasurer who actually brought us through the global financial crisis. Treasurer Swan, who actually did the timely, targeted and temporary stimulus that was recognised around the world as one of the best, if not the best, responses—the best response!—to the global financial crisis ever. Senator Birmingham H6X Are you voting for him, Douggie? Senator CAMERON AI6 And we've got people sitting across here, like Senator Birmingham, yap-yap-yapping away. Senator Birmingham actually came here with some progressive politics, arguing that he was a progressive. And what did we see? Someone who cuts funds for education and who has no capacity to look after the skills and needs of the Australian workforce—a failed minister and a failed politician, only interested in looking after the big end of town. Senator Birmingham H6X That's crap, Douggie, and you know it! Senator CAMERON AI6 You're only interested in looking after your mates, with over $2½ million to the former Family First senator on a rorted position, put forward by you. Don't you lecture us about looking after public money! Don't you lecture us about the Labor Party's position! Wayne Swan saved 115,000 jobs in this country. You never hear the coalition talk about the global financial crisis. They try to pretend that it never happened! Well, there was a global financial crisis, and it was Wayne Swan that brought us through that global financial crisis. It was Paul Keating who turned this place around, turned this country around, opened this country up and modernised the economy—something that the coalition will never do. All the coalition want to do is hand $80 billion in tax cuts to big business and argue that that is their position to create jobs. It is absolute nonsense. Not even the Business Council of Australia, who are going to be the recipients of this, can tell a Senate committee where the jobs would come from and where the increase in wages would come from. Nowhere in the world has this economic rationalist approach actually worked. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Trickle-down economics is simply a myth and it's a myth that this mob, this rabble of a government, this deteriorating government and this government that's only interested in fighting each other, not looking after education and health for working people in this country. It's a desperate government, a pathetic government—so that's their answer. Look at their economic position. They started off under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and it was austerity budgets and cutting pensions. They actually wanted to change the indexation on the pension that would have cost pensioners $80 a week over a decade. They cut funding for health in Indigenous communities. They actually wanted young people in this country to have no income for six months if they were unemployed. They are a pathetic lot, an absolutely pathetic government and a government whose economic position was they would increase the GST. That lasted about a week. Then their next economic position was to say to the states that they could then tax. That lasted a few days. And their latest one is trickle-down economics. Because the banks look after this mob; they are running a protection racket for the banks. They are pathetic. (Time expired) 15:22 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Labor Party are starting to sound increasingly desperate in their arguments around this matter. I have to say the shrill presentation that we just heard from Senator Cameron is sounding desperate, and there is nobody on this side who will be lectured to by the Labor Party on economic management. I think Senator Abetz was right to note that the only economic manager that the Labor Party were prepared to quote in their questions in question time today was former Treasurer Peter Costello. They can't find one of their own to quote. Perhaps they have an obsession with Treasurers from this side of the House—I'm not sure—but they could not find anybody else to quote. Let's not forget that, when the Labor Party came to government in 2007, there was zero debt. There was money in the bank. Over the following six years they increased debt levels. They spent without constraint. I have to say I was proud to be in this chamber to vote against the second tranche of spending that was announced during the GFC. And I will acknowledge there was a GFC; I think it is only reasonable. We supported the first tranche of spending for the GFC, but we didn't support the second tranche of spending. Unlike Senator Cameron, I won't acknowledge that it was spent wisely, because it was spent on things like pink batts, a program that still has impacts in the economy. It was spent on things like overpriced school halls, which were so overpriced that the building economists who measure cost spending wouldn't even include any of those projects in their national cost spending tables. There were the $900 cheques that went to dead people. So the Labor Party cannot lecture us on economic management. They then embedded spending at growth rates of somewhere like 3.7 per cent per annum over the forward estimates. Then, when this government came into place in 2013 and attempted to restrain the spending, the Labor Party with the Greens have voted against us at every single turn. As Senator Abetz said, even though they took $5 billion worth of savings to the 2013 election, they then voted against those same savings following the 2013 election. How can the Labor Party, in any good conscience, lecture the coalition on good economic management? We have constrained the growth in spending from 3.7 per cent, which we inherited from Labor, to 1.9 per cent over the forward estimates. We have constrained the debt that was projected to reach $1 trillion when we came to government to the figure of about $640 billion, where it stands today. How can the Labor Party, in any good conscience, come in here and try to claim to be good economic managers? We remember promise after promise from Wayne Swan that there would be a surplus, to the extent it became a running joke—that the Treasurer of this country, every time he got to his feet, promised a surplus. Senator McAllister 121628 When are you going to get to your surplus? Senator COLBECK 00AOL You wait and watch tonight, Senator. We won't be lectured by Labor on economic management because everybody knows that Labor can't manage the economy. Go out into the community and watch people's heads nod as you make that statement, because people understand that. They know that the coalition has to be brought back to government to bring things under control, because the Labor Party just cannot restrain their spending and they're going into this next election promising $200 billion of increased taxes into the economy. They will not be constrained in their spending and they've already acknowledged that they won't be prepared to constrain their spending growth as the government has committed to do, so they have no credibility in this space. Taxpayers know that the Labor Party cannot get enough of their money. They cannot take enough of it. They think they can spend it better than they can and they will promise more and more taxes. So, coming into the next election, there is one thing that is sure—you will pay more tax under Labor than you will under the coalition. 15:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The journalist Michael Kinsley said that a gaffe is when the politician tells some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say. Well, Peter Costello may no longer be a parliamentary representative for the Liberal Party, but he has said an obvious truth that the government would rather he had not said out loud. They're running all over the shop this afternoon trying to avoid the consequences. What did he say? He told 7.30 that he thinks a priority for the modern Liberal Party ought to be the 'forgotten people', and he defined those as the people who earn more than $200,000 a year. He's worried about the people on six figures, and principally those people on six figures with a '2' at the front of them. He's revealed the truth, actually, about the modern Liberal Party. It's one that they struggle to conceal, but he's belled the cat. They pretend to stand for everyone but, when it really comes down to it, they are irretrievably and entirely for the very, very wealthy. The government cry poor every time they are asked to hand out money to support people on low- and middle-incomes. They cry poor except when it comes to handing out money to their friends. What about the things the government say we can't afford and the community can't have? We can't have proper investment in schools. We can't have a reasonable investment in public hospitals so that when you go to the emergency department you can get the services you need right away. They're not willing really to contemplate proper tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians; indeed, until very recently, they were proposing a giant tax hike for people on incomes between $20,000 and $87,000 a year. They say we can't afford to invest in our vocational education system, even though we know that the economy is changing so quickly that people will need to retrain again and again in their careers. They weren't able to properly fund ASIC—the regulator that's supposed to oversee the banking system—to help prevent the financial scandals and crimes that are coming to light, thanks to the royal commission they said was too expensive and would be a waste of money. They say we can't afford to continue an energy supplement for pensioners. That is something they confirmed today in the chamber. They say that we can't afford an age pension, a pension to support Australians who worked all their lives. They say we can't have one of those unless we defer its commencement until the age of 70. It's really instructive to compare that list with the list of things that the government has demonstrated it is willing to fund, the things it says we can afford within its budget constraint. We can apparently afford tax relief for the banks—big-time tax relief. We can apparently contemplate tax cuts for high-income earners. Unbelievably and in an unprecedented way, it's apparent we can afford a slush fund for coalmines. That's something we can afford; Senator Canavan is extremely enthusiastic about it. We can afford to continue tax arrangements that allow negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements that support investors in the property sector and penalise first home buyers and people who intend to occupy the homes that they buy. Apparently we can afford $8 billion a year in tax credits for the wealthiest 20 per cent of households, those people who have carefully structured their share portfolios to ensure they benefit from that particular arrangement. In other words, when it wants to, this government can find money, but it finds money for its friends. That's what Peter Costello was honest enough to say when he spoke about Menzies's 'forgotten people'. It's very clear who he thinks the priority is. He thinks the priority is those people that earn six-figure salaries. It's actually time for the government to admit that it's not really committed to budget repair at all. That's not its objective. The debt and deficit crisis was a talking point and a talking point alone for the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and Prime Minister Turnbull is no different. If this government was serious about the deficit, then they would look at it the way that Labor has. They would not just be talking about slashing services; they would be looking at changes that make the tax system fairer, whilst raising the necessary revenue, the revenue that we need to deliver the services that the community expects. Question agreed to. Taxation 34 15:32 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to resources taxation. I want to take note of answers, or at least what passed as answers, to my questions today. While we're on the subject of tax rorts and fixing a rigged system, why not focus on the petroleum resource rent tax? This tax was designed decades ago to tax the superprofits of companies accessing resources owned by the Australian people. It is a tax royalties system that's well beyond its use-by date. It is a highly complex tax system that was designed for the extraction of petroleum, not for the value-added upstream LNG production that we've seen in this country—the biggest natural resources boom in this country's history. What have some of the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world paid the Australian people for access to our oil, gas and condensate? Nothing. They have paid absolutely nothing under this regime. $240 billion is a lot of money. That's 12 fundings for the full Gonski. How many more NDISs? How much funding for hospitals, for health care, for universal access or for social safety nets? These companies have clocked up $240 billion in tax credits under this system. It means they won't have to pay tax for decades, if ever, for the resources they've extracted from underneath the oceans off the shelves of our nation. What's worse is that this tax system is incentivising the marginal extraction of hydrocarbons. Oil and gas are hydrocarbons that this planet doesn't need. Ironically, it's this tax system that is the tail wagging the dog. Look at South Australia: deep water, high-risk oil and gas exploration. If we didn't have the petroleum resource rent tax, none of these companies would be considering such a proposition. We are actually encouraging the extraction of marginal resources through this tax system at a time when the planet desperately needs to be moving away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. This is the biggest rort in our tax system—in a system that's totally rigged towards the powerful vested interests that call the shots in this place. By 'powerful vested interests' I mean some of the biggest donors to big political parties in this place—big business and big politics in bed with each other for their own self-interest. I started my question to Senator Fifield today by saying I believe that politics is at a low ebb in this country—and not just this country but other countries as well. We need to ask ourselves why so many voters are feeling disenfranchised, disengaged and completely disinterested in politics. It is because they see politicians and political parties as self-interested and not interested in them. Budget day is one of the most important days in this parliament. It's a chance for the government and all political parties to put up their plan and vision for this nation, to show what their priorities are. I can tell you what the priorities of the Greens are today and every other day in this place: to fix a rigged system and deliver for the Australian people. Right across our economic policies, that is what we strive to do. I was serious when I said to Senator Fifield today that we were chuffed when, last budget day, the government finally put a levy on the banks. That's something we've campaigned on for nearly a decade. It wasn't big enough or anywhere near what we wanted; nevertheless, it went some way towards paying for the 'too big to fail' guarantee—an implicit and explicit guarantee—that has been in place now since the GFC. Today we put up a simple policy, fully costed by the PBO, to put in place a 10 per cent Commonwealth royalty, a floor price, so that these big, powerful corporations have to pay some money today and not have an indefinitely deferred tax liability for the future. It's a simple solution that other countries have adopted. But we won't adopt it, because no-one in this place has the spine to take on big oil and gas—except for the Greens. We'll keep pushing and it will happen one day. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 35 CONDOLENCES Newman, Hon. Jocelyn Margaret, AO 35 15:37 The PRESIDENT I0Q It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 1 April 2018, of the Hon. Jocelyn Margaret Newman AO, a senator for the state of Tasmania from 1986 to 2002. I call the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. 15:37 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria by leave—I move: That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 1 April 2018, of the Honourable Jocelyn Newman AO, former senator for Tasmania and Minister for Social Security, Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in the Howard Government, places on record its gratitude for her long service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement. A tough talking lawyer and a formidable reformist minister, Jocelyn Newman's unique legacy will be defined not only by her policy achievements but by her roles as a trailblazing female parliamentarian, as the matriarch of a remarkable political family and as a diligent servant of Tasmania, Australia and a wide range of causes. Born in Melbourne on 8 July 1937, the eldest surviving child of Lyndhurst and Margaret Mullett, Jocelyn attended Mont Albert Central School and Presbyterian Ladies College before undertaking her tertiary education at the University of Melbourne. I note that in the 1950s it was no mean feat for a young woman to study law at one of Australia's top universities, but her university years revealed more than her trademark tenacity. The political passion that defined much of her life quickly rose to the fore and Jocelyn was an active presence on the University of Melbourne's campus political scene, in addition to coediting its student newspaper, Farrago. Upon meeting a young Army officer named Kevin Newman while on a blind date at an Army ball in Puckapunyal, her life took a new turn. The first 14 years after their marriage in 1961 saw Jocelyn and her family move in line with the demands of Kevin's service no fewer than 12 times, intersected with his deployment in Vietnam. Following the birth of her son Campbell and daughter Kate, she made the compromise of so many women at that time, pausing her career so as to raise her family. Years later, Army service gave way to the political scrum, when Kevin was elected as the federal member for Bass in the landslide 1975 election result that brought an end to the Whitlam government. When Kevin's duties took him outside of the electorate, Jocelyn could often be found attending local functions and engaging with constituents in his place. The conclusion of Kevin's political career in 1984, after several ministerial appointments, marked only the beginning of his wife's political ascent. Having declined two previous approaches to run for office, in 1986 Jocelyn was nominated to succeed Peter Rae as a senator for Tasmania, beating no fewer than 12 rivals to fill the casual vacancy left by his retirement. As only the third female senator elected from Tasmania, she took to her new role, brimming with self-belief and zeal, remarking, 'I think I was born to do this job.' In her first speech in this place, Jocelyn wasted no time in committing that she would stand 'for the free citizen—his initiative, understanding and acceptance of responsibility', decrying what she called the 'doctrine of the all-powerful state'. In so doing, she articulated the fierce small-government principles that would later inform her service in the Howard ministry. During her time in opposition, she took on a range of shadow portfolios, spending time as the spokesperson for defence, veterans' affairs, the status of women, family and health, and a range of other areas. It didn't take long for her to develop a reputation for competence, grit and sheer hard work. As a parliamentarian, Jocelyn drew upon her own experience and made it a priority to improve the living conditions of service families. She would regularly visit military bases and speak with personnel and their relatives, before raising their concerns with such frequency and ferocity that some called her a latter-day Boadicea in the cause of Defence families. She was similarly pugnacious in her defence of Tasmanian interests against what she perceived to be the centralism of the mainland government, arguing for greater autotomy in the management of its environment and for more affordable air fares across the Bass Strait. Her years in politics did not lack in personal hardship. It's a testament to her courage and resilience that she fought and bested successive diagnoses of uterine and breast cancer, returning to the shadow ministry just four months after her second cancer diagnosis. Ever practical, she turned her energy towards the search for a solution and advocated for the introduction of a Medicare rebate for breast cancer services. At a more personal level, she often discussed her battles with cancer publicly, in the hope that it would encourage Australian women to have more regular health checks. Following the election of the Howard government in 1996, Jocelyn served as the Minister for Social Security between 1996 and 1998 and as the Minister for Family and Community Services from 1998 through to 2001. During this time, she prosecuted an ambitious reform agenda in an area that she openly admitted was complex political dynamite. Her busy years at the helm secured the creation of Centrelink in 1997 as the nation's one-stop shop for welfare services, in addition to the introduction of the family tax package and a suite of measures to tackle domestic violence and support its victims. Regarded by many as one of the most capable social services ministers in our nation's history, she reflected at the conclusion of her time in parliament that she had restored public confidence in Australia's social security system. Be it in the Senate chamber or at the cabinet table, Jocelyn made sure that her voice and views were heard. This determination played a key role in the success of her legislative agenda and the life of the early Howard government. The latter years of Jocelyn's service were touched by an intense personal trial following the passing of her husband, Kevin, in July 1999, after 38 years of devoted marriage. In December of the following year, Jocelyn tended her resignation from the ministry before leaving her seat in the Senate on 1 February 2002. This brought to a close a political career that at its height had seen her dubbed 'the minister for courage' and 'Australia's most powerful woman'. Despite her retirement, her public service was far from over. Jocelyn continued to support a range of worthy organisations, including the Australian War Memorial, the Defence Families of Australia and the Breast Cancer Network Australia. Indeed, so many of her achievements cannot be found in the halls of Parliament House or the records of Hansard. As a champion of her local Tasmanian community, Jocelyn supported volunteers and community workers throughout her life, most notably working to establish the Launceston Women's Shelter as a safe place for women fleeing domestic violence. That effort speaks to the other key element of Jocelyn's legacy: her fierce advocacy for the rights and interests of women. This passion largely sprang from the early days of her legal career during which she saw firsthand some of the hardships that women and children can face. It was also tied to her own sense of justice and a fair go—the wish of a talented and driven woman who had no time for the restrictions of the status quo. It is sometimes noted that her pursuit of a political career commenced in earnest when a department store refused to provide her with a personal credit account without the signature of her husband. That momentary act of discrimination did nothing to stop her and during her time as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women she worked tirelessly to combat domestic violence, secure historic reforms to postmarital superannuation arrangements and promote female involvement in the small business sector. Yet, whenever asked, Jocelyn was always quick to anchor those efforts in her abiding belief in personal opportunity and responsibility, articulating this in her stated conviction that: …every citizen in this country deserves an equal opportunity in life. That does not mean having their paths smoothed for them every inch of the way. Citizens need an equal opportunity to start and then they have to proceed on their own merit. The breadth of her achievements was summarised well upon her appointment as an officer of the Order of Australia in 2005, with the citation noting her service to the community through contributions to the development of government policies in relation to social security reform, as an advocate for women's issues and as a supporter of local organisations in Tasmania. In closing, I note that the remarkable life of Jocelyn Newman presents many similarities to that of another trailblazing Australian and servant of Tasmania, Dame Enid Lyons—whom she knew personally and admired greatly—drive, courage, tenacity and a willingness to break with the status quo in pursuit of her own convictions and the good of others. To Jocelyn's children, Campbell and Kate, and to her granddaughters, Rebecca, Sarah, Emma and Samantha, on behalf of the government, I offer my sincerest condolences. Jocelyn was one of the substantial figures of Australian politics. 15:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of former Senator and minister, the Hon. Jocelyn Margaret Newman, AO who passed away on 1 April 2018 at the age of 80. At the outset, I wish to convey the opposition's condolences to relatives and friends of Mrs Newman, including those on the opposite side of the chamber. Jocelyn Newman was a leading woman in the Liberal Party in federal parliament from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. A long-serving shadow minister, with the election of the Howard government in 1996 she entered cabinet with Amanda Vanstone, becoming the second and the third Liberal women to hold ministerial portfolios in cabinet. As Minister for Social Security, as well as Minister for the Status of Women, she had a platform to implement a number of programs that significantly altered the direction of policy in Australia. A natural conservative, she was the face of the Howard government's policies that substantially affected Australians who were reliant on government support. She brought her experiences as a lawyer and community worker to bear in her determination and her largely successful and enduring approach to policy implementation. Her legacy is that of a strong and competent minister. Born in Melbourne, Jocelyn Mullett practised as a barrister and solicitor prior to entering parliament, after graduating from the University of Melbourne with her degree in law. She was also variously a farmer, a hotelier and a community volunteer. It was whilst working in family law in Tasmania and witnessing firsthand the impact of poverty and domestic violence on women and children that she formed some of the policy positions that she would carry into her political career. She was also on the foundation committees of women's shelters in both Launceston and Hobart. She married Kevin Newman in 1961, and they would go on to have two children, Kate and Campbell. As is generally well known, the latter served as Premier of Queensland from 2012 to 2015. The former is an assistant commissioner for taxation. After living in different states and overseas, the Newmans settled in Tasmania. Kevin, an army officer, was a member of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1984 and a minister in the Fraser government and passed away in 1999. Jocelyn Newman entered the Senate when she filled a casual vacancy caused by the retirement of Tasmanian senator Peter Rae. She joined Doris Blackburn and Dame Enid Lyons as the only women who had followed their husbands into parliament, with the latter also being a Tasmanian. The Sunday Tasmanian cautioned against assumptions that she would merely be a mouthpiece for the former member for Bass, but for 'the thoughts, opinions and always of an independent, self-confident woman'. Mrs Newman would be re-elected in 1987, 1990 and 1996, retiring in February 2002 after serving nearly 16 years. She noted in her first speech that she had already taken her place on an estimates committee and on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Mrs Newman, as is customary, also set down her views on various matters of public policy. She denounced the welfare state, decrying the way in which individuals, community groups and industry alike looked to government for support before making any effort on their own part. She sought a reduction in the burden of taxation and saw the key role of the federal government as protecting Australians from internal violence and external aggression. Consistent with this, she also identified the importance of wise and efficient spending in the Defence portfolio. She believed that it was not a question of a particular threat but of being prepared, an area where she had personal experience through her husband's service and which would go on as a significant focus during her time as shadow minister. Mrs Newman took considerable time to articulate some of her concerns about the management of this portfolio. These included loss of skills and experience, the standards of accommodation for military personnel and their families and investment in reserve forces. She also placed herself firmly behind her home state—and all states—against what she saw as encroaching Commonwealth power on the rights of their citizens and the responsibility of their governments. As a senator, Mrs Newman took a place on a variety of committees until the election of the Howard government in 1996. However, it was her rapid entry into the shadow ministry that would consume most of her energy. First appointed in 1988, in the Defence Science and Personnel portfolio, Mrs Newman would go on to accumulate and relinquish roles in areas which included the status of women, veterans affairs, the aged, family and health, family matters and, finally, defence. Mrs Newman was a champion for better conditions for service men and women and their families. She might have been considered unlucky not to have continued in the Defence portfolio after the election. When asked about whether she would encourage more women to get involved in politics, Mrs Newman replied in the affirmative, encouraging women to take on more prominent roles in community organisations and local government as a stepping stone to higher office. Being a member of parliament involves many trials. Mrs Newman showed determination of a different sort, and these challenges were accentuated, by confronting and overcoming cancer, which forced her to stand down for a brief period in 1994. When she first entered the Senate in 1986, some commentators thought then opposition leader John Howard was on the cusp of leading the Liberal Party back into government. But it would be 10 long years before Jocelyn Newman would have the opportunity to emulate her spouse and serve as a minister. Following the election of the Howard government in 1996, Mrs Newman entered the cabinet and took on the role of Minister for Social Security and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Prior to this, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was the only other woman who had served as a cabinet minister with a portfolio under a Liberal Prime Minister. With Amanda Vanstone, who was also appointed to cabinet at this time, Mrs Newman broke new ground. One expects that having a minister in the family and her long experience as a shadow minister were of great benefit personally and in the cabinet room. As Minister for Social Security and then Minister for Family and Community Services from 1998, Mrs Newman was responsible for some of the Howard government's most far-reaching changes of its first and second terms. These were described by the current Prime Minister as: … some of the most complex changes to the social security system in a generation … Former Prime Minister Howard gave her great credit, both for being Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women at the beginning of his government and especially for the work she did in reforming social security policy. Her achievements included: the creation of Centrelink; reforms to family tax, child support and youth allowance programs; and measures to combat domestic violence. Mr Howard praised Mrs Newman for successfully navigating important savings measures through the Senate and for her overall contribution to cabinet discussions. There's no doubt that Mrs Newman came to the Social Security portfolio with well-developed views about the role of government in supporting individuals and families. These policy positions have been described as 'hardline'. At the time, the opposition criticised the Howard government for a lack of commitment to combating poverty and child neglect and sought greater investment for early intervention. Whether such opinions are fair or not will be for others to judge, but she was consistent and forthright in implementing these policies. Measures implemented by Mrs Newman extended to efforts to curb fraudulent welfare claims and to limit claims for support to those determined to be in significant need. She was an advocate for the implementation of the recommendations of the McClure report to extend certain measures applicable to the workforce sector to a larger number of welfare recipients, such as those on disability and supporting pensions, taking on ministerial colleagues Messrs Peter Reith and Tony Abbott. Her previous experience at the coalface of family law doubtlessly provided motivation for her determination to relentlessly pursue men who did not obey court orders to support their children. Those of us who have been ministers understand the considerable personal sacrifices that are made as a consequence of the demands of office. Having already confronted her own health challenges while in opposition, Mrs Newman was devastated by the sudden death of her husband while she was on ministerial business overseas in 1999. In characteristic style, Mrs Newman continued administering and restructuring one of the largest portfolios until resigning in late 2000, formally concluding her term as a minister in January 2001. She stood down from the Senate on 1 February 2002 and was replaced by Senator Richard Colbeck, who is in the chamber today. Leaving parliamentary politics gave Jocelyn Newman an opportunity to indulge in her hobby of gardening, but she was never going to walk away from public service entirely. There was much speculation that she would be appointed Australia's first female Governor-General. Whilst this did not eventuate, amongst other roles, Mrs Newman brought her long experience in defence and veterans' affairs matters to the Council of the Australian War Memorial, on which she served from 2002 until 2009. She also served on the board of Breast Cancer Network Australia. In 2005 Mrs Newman was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia 'for service to the community through contributions to the development of government policies in relation to social security reform, as an advocate for women's issues, particularly in the health and welfare areas, and as a supporter of local organisations in Tasmania'. She also gave her energy to supporting her daughter, Kate, and her son, Campbell, the latter in his roles as Lord Mayor of Brisbane and later as Premier, as well as their families. On one occasion Mr Newman drove his mother around the city he controlled for seven years, not for a scenic tour of Brisbane's top attractions but to keep an eye out for pot holes. 'I was the spotter,' Mrs Newman told The Australian in 2011. In more recent years Mrs Newman lived on the South Coast of New South Wales, where she passed away at the nursing home as a result of Alzheimer's disease. John Howard described Jocelyn Newman as a tenacious, forthright and devoted colleague and particularly noted her legacy in the social security policy area. Mrs Newman fought welfare fraud and championed self-reliance in her portfolio of social security, family and community services and the status of women. She leaves a considerable and enduring legacy as a senator, minister and leading woman in the Liberal Party. Her place as a notable contributor to Australian political life will be continued by her children, who are already active in politics and public service, and doubtless by her grandchildren, all of whom will mourn her passing. We extend our sympathies to the family and friends at this time. 16:01 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I rise on behalf of the Nationals to support this motion and to pay my respects to the late Hon. Jocelyn Newman, who, sadly, passed away on 1 April this year. It's always bittersweet to farewell a colleague who contributed so much to this place. Not only do we say goodbye with great sadness and sorrow to those who sat on these benches and passionately proclaimed their convictions, but we also reflect on and celebrate their lives and their achievements. Jocelyn was a rare gem whose value and contribution to so many areas in the community was totally unprecedented. It's fair to say that Jocelyn spent her life breaking barriers in society and achieving a great deal of success through her life, through her career and as a mother. She spent her life pursuing issues such as women's rights, changes to the welfare system and better support for Defence personnel and their families, but all in all she never failed to serve her own family first. What strikes me as most fascinating about Jocelyn is not actually the fact she achieved so many things whilst raising a family; it's the fact that she overcame so many health setbacks during that period of time. She let none of them deter her from continuing along the chosen path of supporting and advocating for so many of her passions. As we've heard, Ms Newman pursued a lifelong advocacy for the rights of women who suffered violence at the hands of an intimate or domestic partner. She started this in her early days as a lawyer and continued this passion throughout her life. Her legal career, however, was put on hold after her marriage to Kevin Newman and their relocation to Tasmania in 1973, where her husband served in the Army. It's important to acknowledge that during this time Ms Newman experienced firsthand the challenges of being a family member of serving personnel whilst her husband was in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968. Her efforts to improve the support for our armed forces and their families would be something of an ongoing cause of hers through the span of her career, and it represents her habit of taking hold of own experiences and observations in order to bring forward awareness and change. The mid-seventies saw the beginnings of a new Newman family dynasty of sorts in the Liberal Party of Tasmania with the election of Kevin to the division of Bass in 1975. I understand that Jocelyn spent much of her time representing her husband at many functions around the electorate and, I dare say, got a bit of a taste of public life and what she could really contribute to her community. She went on to hold many positions in and around Launceston, including, notably, establishing a women's shelter that I believe still remains. However, Jocelyn was determined to carry out her goal of the ultimate service to the community by representing the people of Tasmania as a senator in the Parliament of Australia. Her success in being selected—you have to remember this was in 1986—out of a dozen men to replace former Senator Peter Rae after his resignation was to many an extraordinary achievement that displayed the tenacious parliamentarian that indeed she turned out to be. I was pleased to serve alongside Jocelyn for a very short period, literally a month or so—being a Territorian, I started the day after the election; I think it was a month or so before Senator Colbeck came. But even in that short period of time, with crowds of people in this place, she still left the indelible mark of someone who knew what she was doing here. She was a very strong, very resilient character. In the party room I recall she had absolutely no qualms about stating her views but, most importantly, she would have a little chat to those people who were asserting their views but not in a respectful manner. When I heard of the shopkeeper asking Jocelyn for Kevin's signature on an account, I shudder—knowing that the shopkeeper wouldn't have survived that event! Jocelyn brought to politics, I think, a very practical circumstance. I remember that. I came here with a naive experience. I had not come from a parliamentary background. She quizzed me about my experience in the Northern Territory. She quizzed me all about Arnhem Land. She talked to me particularly about the plight of Aboriginal women—what did I think, what happened and a whole range of stuff. I felt she had such a focused interest in her business of protecting women, understanding more about the domestic violence and how it affected different demographics. But Jocelyn was also a bit of a character. Some of us recall when she pulled a bit of a stunt to highlight the Hawke government on a serious issue of airport security. She gave a staffer a red briefcase and said, 'Get on the plane, book in and off you go to Canberra.' Of course, at the last minute, she got the staffer not to go and to leave his case on the plane that went to Canberra to make this point that the security really wasn't what it was cracked up to be. You can imagine nowadays the furore that would cause but that was Jocelyn. I would be surprised if this place delivers a better minister for social policy. They were tough times to make changes from a conservative government. Many of those who have been here a while understand there's a perception that it's harder to make social changes from conservative government—I'm not making a political point—because those on the other side think that's their job. She did such a remarkable job of reforming Australia in that area at such an important time. Jocelyn is well regarded as the champion of women and the champion for her beloved Tasmania. She never stopped going in to bat for Tasmania and, can I tell you, she has such a deserved reputation as a dogged and fierce advocate. So, on behalf of the Nationals, I would like to recognise the life of Jocelyn Newman and her contribution particularly to this parliament and to the nation. Our thoughts and condolences are with her family and friends at this very difficult time. Vale Jocelyn Newman. 16:09 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I would like to contribute personally to this debate on this condolence motion. Jocelyn Newman was in this chamber for many years, from when I first came here in 1997 until she left in 2002. For much of that time, I had responsibility for social security and social welfare issues for my party so I had plenty of cause to have discussions and debate with her in this chamber on legislation as well as outside of this chamber. I wish to pick up a particular word Senator Scullion used that I had already written down, which is 'respectful'. It is no great surprise that I disagreed with her—in fact, if I look back through the record I probably voted against most of the legislation that she put forward at the time; that is probably why I had so many exchanges with her in this chamber, trying to amend what the government of the time was doing—but she was genuinely respectful. I would also say she was genuinely sincere and competent at her work. It's not making a partisan point to say I wouldn't say that about everybody I've had exchanges with in this chamber from all sides. All of us, if we are here for any length of time, have cause to have conversations with staffers and others who work with various ministers and MPs. It was only a year ago while I was having dinner in Brisbane that somebody at the adjoining table recognised me and started to speak to me. He had worked with a number of ministers from that time, and he specifically singled out Jocelyn Newman as the best that he had worked for in terms of her competence and her respectfulness—again, I think that is the right word. As Senator Scullion also alluded to, she certainly wasn't someone who would leave you in any doubt about what their opinion was—she was certainly very capable of being firm in her views—but she was still respectful in her dealings with everybody. That person's opinion reaffirmed what I had thought: she was someone who knew her stuff very well. That is always appreciated. You can disagree on people's policy prescriptions for something, but it's at least reassuring to know that they understand what they're talking about, even if you disagree with their view. Others have mentioned her views, her commitment and her record with regard to women, particularly her efforts on behalf of women experiencing domestic violence. I didn't always agree with her policy prescriptions, but I definitely agreed with her genuine commitment to try to assist the many women who did, and unfortunately still do, have to deal with those circumstances. I really wanted to put on the record my own appreciation, acknowledgement and personal experience of Jocelyn Newman's very strong contribution to the role of this chamber and the way the Senate in particular works when it's at its best: not the policy positions it comes to, but the way that people engage with a genuine attempt to deal with issues on their merits and engage with all of the competing views that are put forward. I did find her to be one of the best coalition ministers that I had to engage with during that time with regard to how she went about her business, and I really wanted, albeit in very sad circumstances, the opportunity to put that on the record. This has also been alluded to in some of today's contributions, but I also want to say something about her commitment and her genuine feelings towards her own family and her husband, Kevin, who died while she was a member of this chamber. It's funny sometimes the things that stick in your head. I particularly remember a time, it would have been a year or possibly even two years after her husband had passed away, when there was a debate in this chamber on some piece of legislation. It may have been to do with family law or divorce or sole parents—I can't remember. Senator Newman was there, and I think Senator Chris Evans from the Labor Party was there. She made an off-the-cuff comment about people who get remarried. She then said: 'I wouldn't get remarried. I've only just done that. Once was enough for me.' The memory that that obviously brought up in her of her husband, even after he had passed away a year or two before, brought her to tears here. It was sad but very touching to see how deeply that still affected her all that time afterwards. I think they'd been married 37 or 38 years, and to me it was a sign of her personal, genuine, emotional commitment to the issues she believed in and the people who she worked with. I very much appreciate being able to join in this chamber's acknowledgement of not just Jocelyn Newman's contribution to the Senate but what she also did throughout her life. 16:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is indeed an honour to join with colleagues this afternoon in paying tribute on this condolence motion to our former colleague Jocelyn Newman, with whom I also had the great pleasure and honour of serving between 1997 and 2002, as Senator Bartlett has observed. Jocelyn Newman was a fine role model and colleague for me, as a then very new senator in 1997, and for many others. I still have the letter she wrote to me that year on the day of my first speech. I valued her feedback and her advice enormously. She was, as anyone who sat with her around the cabinet table or in committee or engaged with her in this chamber will tell you—and as I think colleagues have adverted to in their remarks—a formidable interlocutor. She was smart, quick, witty, determined and immensely focused on the task at hand. In fact she had the most powerful blue-eyed focus I can ever recall, long before that was a thing. I first met Jocelyn in about 1989 when I was an adviser to the then opposition leader in the Senate, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill. She was the shadow minister for defence science and personnel—speaking of formidable, the then Senator the Hon. Peter Durack was the shadow minister for defence. She was phenomenally committed to her shadow role of defence science and personnel. I learned a great deal from her in that time, which I would like to say, starting with that role of hers and the one she took subsequently, has stood me in very good stead in recent years. But her true passion for matters defence came to the fore as the shadow minister for defence for the coalition between 1994 and 1996. I think it's fair to say that Prime Minister Howard was very honest indeed when he noted at her state funeral that he ultimately knew how much he had disappointed her when he did not make her the Minister for Defence after the 1996 election. The mark of the woman, however, was that notwithstanding that disappointment she took to the ministerial role she was given by Prime Minister Howard in 1996 with enormous application and, as others have reflected, was a true reformer no matter your view or perspective on the reforms that she pursued on behalf of the Howard government. She was a true reformer of the delivery of social services in this country. She was indeed an exceptionally diligent minister: highly regarded, as others have said, by her departments and by her colleagues. She was also a member of a fabulous team of Liberal Senate women at the time of—it's invidious to start naming names, as I don't want to leave anybody out—then Senator Margaret Reid, then Senator Sue Knowles, then Senator Kay Patterson, who were all able to attend her state funeral, and then Senator Amanda Vanstone. For people like me who had joined the team relatively late in those relationships, it was a real thing to watch. They were an extremely strong and powerful team and a great pleasure to have as friends and colleagues. Jocelyn was, as everyone has observed and as I know her Tasmanian friends and colleagues will go on to say in greater detail, a passionate Tasmanian. She was also passionate about the role and position of women in Australian society and, in fact, the world. She was particularly passionate, though, about the men and women of the ADF and their families, and she earned their everlasting respect; indeed, the Federation Guard were her pallbearers. Reflected in the extremely moving service that was held for her, the state funeral at the Anzac Memorial Chapel of St Paul at the Royal Military College, was that commitment to the men and women of the ADF and their families—in my humble opinion, taken by her not just because of her own service experience but because of her absolute passion for the men and women who served and those who support them much more broadly. I acknowledge the very many beautiful words that were said on that day by so many in a service led by the Reverend Sarah Gibson, the senior chaplain at RMC Army—beautiful words of a life so well lived and of great service to our nation and to her state. She was a leader of Liberal women and a much-loved mother and grandmother. I acknowledge her family: Campbell and Kate, their spouses and her grandchildren. I acknowledge her granddaughters Rebecca and Emma, who spoke so lovingly of their grandmother. It's hard to know the difficulties of living with and losing someone to dementia. They painted a beautiful and powerful picture. All the Liberal women who follow in Jocelyn Newman's footsteps owe her an enormous debt. 16:21 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland For all but her first three years, I served with Jocelyn Newman in this particular chamber. I express my condolences and those of my wife, Lesley, to Jocelyn's family. The Newmans were a very significant political and military family. I certainly wasn't in parliament at the time, but I well remember when Kevin Newman won the electorate of Bass at the Barnard by-election, which was the start of the shift against the Whitlam government and the inauguration of the Fraser government. Kevin, himself a distinguished soldier, served in this parliament for many years in various portfolios, initially as Minister for Repatriation, going on to serve in many other portfolios. Jocelyn was steeped in the military tradition, as was her son, Campbell, who, of course, I knew well in his role as Lord Mayor of Brisbane and later as Premier of our great state of Queensland. I last saw Jocelyn during Campbell's first campaign, and she was very much part of it in those days. She certainly assisted Campbell with a lot of advice in that difficult time when he was leading the LNP but wasn't in parliament himself. I remember that Jocelyn was a tower of strength. Unfortunately, ill health in the latter part of her life while Campbell was Premier really prevented me or too many others from visiting her, but she was a wonderful person. Senator Payne mentioned former senator Robert Hill, who was Leader of the Opposition and then Leader of the Government in the Senate. I happened to run into Robert Hill earlier today and we were talking about Jocelyn. Robert described her as a very efficient and effective shadow minister and then minister but, more importantly, as a warm and loyal friend. I think that sums up Jocelyn very well. I particularly remember her in many fields. When I first came into parliament, the Liberal Party in Queensland almost wasn't known outside of Brisbane. I'd come in and was based in the north, but people didn't know what a Liberal was. I used to organise groups of Liberal senators to come to North Queensland so that people could see that there were such things as Liberal senators and that there were, indeed, Liberal women senators. I remember Jocelyn was part of the team that came up on several occasions to float around the whole of North Queensland spreading the word. I do remember well the 1996 election, which, of course, John Howard won as Prime Minister, and Jocelyn was the shadow minister for defence. They happened to be in Townsville, no doubt on a shadow cabinet meeting or doing other good work in opposition at the time. I do remember Jocelyn as shadow minister for defence standing at the front counter of my office at the Suncorp building in Townsville, taking phone calls and making last-minute adjustments to the coalition's defence policy, which at late notice she had decided she was going to release the next day or the subsequent day. And I well remember how efficient she was, how forceful she was with the leadership and with those who were advising her on the coalition's policy for the '96 election in the defence area. She is, as Senator Payne and others mentioned, a tower of strength for women and for the Liberal Party in this chamber and everywhere else. I particularly wanted to acknowledge Jocelyn but also extend my condolences to Campbell and Lisa, who I knew—I'm afraid I didn't know other members of the family, but my condolences to them. I know that always Campbell gained great inspiration from the strength of his mother and father, but particularly his mother in those later years of her life, when he led his party to the biggest ever election win of any election, I think, anywhere in the Western democratic world at that time. And I know that Jocelyn contributed to Campbell's strength and forbearance at that time. May she rest in peace. 16:26 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania The Hon. Jocelyn Newman AO will be rightly remembered for her many fine attributes: lawyer, wife, mother, army wife and Defence Force advocate, women's shelter founder, senator, cabinet minister, grandmother and, indeed, even a former Miss Melbourne University—a well-rounded life devoted to her family, her sex, her state and her nation, a true champion with whom I had the honour of serving my Senate apprenticeship. It was an honour to be able to represent you, Mr President, at the recent memorial service celebrating the life of the Hon. Jocelyn Newman AO. The tributes paid to her on that occasion by former Prime Minister John Howard and her grandchildren were as good a send-off as one could wish for. Today she has received even more deserved accolades, and I appreciate in particular Senator Fifield's fine contribution in that regard. Her public life is on the record and speaks for itself. Suffice to mention two quick issues, which of course were very big issues: the formation of Centrelink in her ministerial capacity and the beginning of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme in her capacity as senator for Tasmania. When you have the privilege of working closely with a person, you get to appreciate the real person and you see the real person, so let me give a brief personal insight. Jocelyn was a true lady with a steely determination, a loving nature and a good sense of humour, a woman whose love of husband and family were always foremost in her mind, a woman who held her own in any debate through intellectual prowess and rigour and had a capacity to articulate. An issue dealt with was an issue to be forgotten, and you moved forward. It was a privilege to be an apprentice to Senator Newman. I extend to her family my sincere condolences, noting that the Tasmanian Liberal Party has been holding minutes of silence at the various meetings right around the state of Tasmania in recognition of her excellent service to the Liberal Party, the state of Tasmania and our nation of Australia. May she rest in peace. 16:30 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I too rise to make a contribution in recognition of the life of my immediate predecessor in my first incarnation in this place in 2002, the Hon. Jocelyn Newman, AO. Jocelyn was part of a family that enjoys a very special place in Tasmanian and national politics, particularly the Liberal Party of Tasmania. Jocelyn's husband, as has been mentioned before, Kevin, won that famous by-election in Bass in 1975, which then set the tone for the political events of the immediate future, and it's one of those times that is recalled by many in national politics, regardless of which side of politics you come from, to be frank. I also had the opportunity, as state president of the party, to work with Jocelyn when she was the Prime Minister's representative on the state executive. She had an uncanny capacity to manage the vagaries of the internal politics of the party and even to put those of us who she thought were playing up a bit back into our places, with that formidable determination that's been described so many times so far today. Following Kevin's retirement from the parliament, Jocelyn went on to establish her own very special place in political history, quite independent of Kevin, although not without Kevin. As has been noted, she was certainly an important part of the team when he was a member of parliament, and he was an important part of the team when she was a member of parliament, and to work together with them on the campaign trail was great fun. There is quite a famous story of one of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team tours travelling in the north, I think heading towards George Town, when Jocelyn was allegedly the navigator and former President Paul Calvert was the driver waiting for instructions. They were supposed to negotiate a turn-off, but, without any instruction from the alleged navigator, Paul kept on driving straight ahead. That was followed by a negotiation as to how they actually got to the destination, which, as you could imagine, was quite amusing. Jocelyn's time in the parliament brought many highlights, which have been mentioned already, so they don't need to be repeated. But my recollection of her time—in particular, when she was working on those significant reforms that she brought into place around the social security framework that exists now—was her appearing on what was then a pretty difficult gig on the7.30program on the ABC. She was being questioned closely and quite forensically about the reforms and what they might bring. I think Senator Payne's description of that steely gaze probably best describes the way that she dealt with that interview. There was no turning back. There was no deviation from where she was heading with that reform. That interview, as difficult it was, was dealt with with the typical aplomb that Jocelyn brought, because she was so well across her brief that no media interview, no matter how difficult, was going to detract her from or move her off the path. She was, as has been described, a powerful advocate for Tasmania and also in her portfolios. As has been noted by a number of people, she could only be regarded as an exemplary example for women seeking and conducting a role in public life. The fact, as has been noted before, that she beat a field of 12 guys in 1986 to win preselection—including Senator Abetz, I might add—is a testament to that. And she wasn't expected to win; I think that's another point worth noting. I think 'formidable' is an apt description for Jocelyn. Yet, formidable as she was, she had the warmth and the character to be one of those rare individuals able to make every single person in a room feel as though she were talking just to them. It's not something that I've seen in many people at all. She received a very fitting send off at her state funeral. She was a remarkable Australian, and one I'm proud to call a friend. I extend my sincerest condolences to Campbell, Kate, her grandchildren and their extended family. 16:36 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I also rise to support the motion on the passing and the legacy of the Hon. Jocelyn Margaret Newman, AO, an outstanding and passionate representative in Canberra for all Tasmanians, an eminently capable federal cabinet minister and, above all, a wonderfully compassionate and caring human being. I follow two of my fellow Tasmanian Liberal senators who have also paid tribute to Jocelyn—Senators Abetz and Colbeck. The three of us all knew her well. I don't believe that Senator Duniam, who is also present, knew her personally, but he has requested that he be associated with the remarks of his fellow Tasmanian senators. Jocelyn's career as a Tasmanian senator spanned 16 years. During this time she enjoyed some remarkable achievements, serving as the Minister for Social Services from 1996 to 1998 and as Minister for Family and Community Services from 1998 to 2001, both under Prime Minister John Howard. Indeed, for much of that time she was the most senior woman in the Howard government and, if my memory serves me well, the most senior female in any federal government to that time. Much has been said today of Jocelyn's achievements during that time, but I do note and repeat that, amongst other things, she oversaw the introduction of the family tax package and reforms to child support legislation; she introduced measures to combat domestic violence and to assist victims; and she took particular pride in introducing progressive amendments to the youth allowance. Then Senator Newman also expressed her determination to reduce welfare dependency, to eradicate rorters and to improve children's futures by working to keep families together. One does not achieve the kinds of results and outcomes as those delivered by Jocelyn in her time in this place without also possessing, as has already been suitably acknowledged, formidability, intelligence, courage and wit, all of which Jocelyn held in spades. In 2005, as we've also heard, she was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for her service to the community through contributions to the development of government policies in relation to social security reform, as an advocate for women's issues—particularly in the health and welfare areas—and as a supporter of local organisations in Tasmania. Jocelyn's views on the status of women were linked to her belief in the importance of personal responsibility, and she believed in equal opportunity rather than affirmative action. This, I think, encapsulates not only Jocelyn's immense contributions to the Tasmanian community but also her approach to decision-making here in Canberra. I recall her on many occasions making the observation that Liberal governments should constantly refer to our party's 'We believe' statement and filter all decisions made through the principles that it contains, as these beliefs underpin all that good government should entail. I even recall her stating that this statement should be on the wall of all Liberal decision-makers. Her approach to decision-making certainly reflected her advice. As a champion of social security reform and an advocate for women's issues, she possessed the strength, compassion and empathy needed to deliver the reform that was necessary to the delivery of services to those who needed them most whilst ensuring the integrity of government programs designed to do just that. In accordance with Jocelyn's advice on the Liberal 'we believe' statement, she strongly supported the notions of individual agency, free thought and free action and the notion that, with enough hard work, the right attitude and support from those you love dearly, you will overcome and you will succeed. I had the great privilege of working as a member of Jocelyn's staff for a time before her retirement and serving for a number of years with her, and also with Senator Colbeck, on the Liberal Party state executive. Through both roles, I was honoured to receive the benefit of her advice, experience and wisdom. Jocelyn was a mentor who I immensely respected, who, in some ways, I was in awe of and to whom I have no hesitation in paying my highest respects. I'm sure that my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues in the Senate today would agree that they all learnt much from Jocelyn—except maybe Senator Duniam directly, although I suspect he's probably learnt a bit from her legacy—and that we're all better people for having known her. Indeed, Australia is a better place for her service. Jocelyn will be dearly missed. I send my best thoughts to her children, Campbell and Kate, and her grandchildren, not just in sadness for her passing but in gratitude for a life well and truly lived with extraordinary commitment, compassion and service. 16:41 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I too rise to associate with the comments that have been made by my colleagues. I had the honour to know Jocelyn when I first came here as a staffer from 1989 to 1993 when I worked for the then shadow minister for policy coordination and transition to government Jim Carlton. Jocelyn served on the shadow social policy committee and worked very closely with Jim on that committee. Jocelyn was truly a woman of great attribute, but she was also a woman who took time to mentor. She took time to explain. She took time out, certainly for me as a staffer here, to assist and to always provide her advice. She was the classic steel hand in the velvet glove. I remember her as a woman of great compassion but also as a woman who had the ability to deal with very difficult tasks, particularly in the social policy area, at a time when we were considering making some difficult changes, particularly in the lead-up to the 1993 election. As a conservative woman myself, I know that she will be very well remembered as a conservative woman, as somebody who brought wonderful attributes of family and all of those things to her work and, as I said, as having a great deal of compassion and a brilliant mind and as a woman, for those of us women in politics, who was truly a guiding light. I pay my condolences to all her family and to her friends on her passing. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. NOTICES 44 NOTICES Presentation 44 NOTICES 50 NOTICES Postponement 50 16:44 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall proceed. BUSINESS 50 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 50 16:44 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Gallagher for today, 8 May 2018, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Chisholm for today, 8 May 2018, on account of parliamentary business; and (c) Senator Polley from 8 May to 10 May 2018 for personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 50 MOTIONS National Security Legislation 50 16:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 790, standing in my name and the name of Senator McKim for today, relating to Indigenous rangers. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I, and on behalf of Senator McKim, move the motion as amended: Senator Siewert, also on behalf of Senator McKim, amended general business notice of motion no. 790 by leave and, pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved: That the Senate: (a)   notes with deep concern reports that Indigenous rangers could be caught up in the Government’s proposed foreign interference laws, in particular, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017; (b)   expresses confusion that Indigenous rangers could find themselves cast as foreign agents by advocating in favour of their program, simply because they are funded by an American charitable trust; (c)   affirms that the Indigenous rangers program plays a critical role in protecting country, and providing meaningful employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; (d)   further affirms the importance of advocacy and civil society in a healthy democracy; and (e)   calls on the Federal Government to: (i)   acknowledge that its package of legislation relating to foreign influence, including the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017, and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 goes beyond their stated purpose of reducing foreign influence, and (ii)   commit to work with stakeholders to ensure the final outcome does not impinge on civil society and democracy in Australia. 16:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government does not support this motion. The government is providing record funding to support almost 3,000 jobs for Indigenous rangers. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme would not prohibit foreign funding for Indigenous rangers. It merely requires groups funded by foreign principals for the purpose of influencing Australian democracy to register. Similarly, the foreign donations reforms are designed to ensure all political campaigning targeting Australians is paid for by Australians. The government is open to sensible refinements, following receipt of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report, to ensure the scheme achieves its important transparency objective. 16:46 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I seek leave to make a brief statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Collins. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Labor members and senators have been proud to stand with a broad coalition of charities and not-for-profits to defend the right to advocate and speak out on issues affecting our society. Labor has led the way on reforming political donations and removing foreign influence from the political process, and the opposition has made a commitment to keep working to ban foreign donations. The opposition believes that we can clean up donations without silencing our community sector. The opposition is not interested in laws which punish Australian charities and not-for-profits. The opposition will be supporting this motion, and we call on the government to listen to these very real concerns. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 51 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Health Care 51 16:47 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 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 the following letter has been received from Senator Collins: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The need for the Prime Minister, in his government's budget tonight, to stop his cuts to Medicare and reverse his $700 million of cuts to local hospitals; reverse his $17 billion of cuts to local schools; give up on the zombie cuts in his budget that hurt families and pensioners—like axing the energy supplement; and reverse his $80 billion tax handout to the top end of town. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:48 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The big four banks aren't very popular amongst the Australian people at the moment. At the banking royal commission—the one that Mr Turnbull spent years opposing because he knew of the damage it would cause his mates in the banking sector—we have heard damning evidence of dodgy and downright illegal behaviour. What's the reward from the government for such a gross breach of Australia's trust? Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison will give them $17 billion in tax breaks—$17 billion to banks that have been ripping off customers, falsifying documents and acting in a fraudulent or dishonest way. On current calculations, one dollar in four from a company tax cut will go into the pockets of big banks. Could there be a stranger public policy than rewarding the banking sector with a multibillion dollar tax cut at the same time the sector is going through its biggest shake-out in a generation? We know that $17 billion is also the amount of money that the government has ripped away from schools. Bank profits are being paid for with classroom supplies and teachers' resources. Australia's parents should remember, every time their child's school cannot afford something, that money was ripped from their schools to inflate bank profits. The government should be utterly ashamed of itself. The Treasurer wants us all to think he's a great guy because he's giving a small tax cut to individuals. Regular Australian families will receive a so-called sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut, while Mr Turnbull's banker mates will get billions of dollars extra each year. In fact, it's probably not a sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut; it's probably a sandwich-or-milkshake tax cut. All this is coming at a time when workers have being facing the lowest wage growth in decades, while bank profits are again at record highs. While the banks are the main beneficiaries, big business as a whole, including multinationals, will benefit to the tune of $80 billion, because the government has to reward its big business mates for their donations and their public support of the government. This tax break for multinationals is funded from money that will be ripped out of Australian schools and Australian hospitals and taken away from infrastructure and other important projects. The services that everyday Australians rely on are being gutted to pay for these corporate tax cuts. The Liberal Party spin would have you believe that this tax cut will create more jobs and fatter pay packets, but managers have said that tax cuts will be more likely to go to share buybacks and paying down corporate debt. Only seven per cent of firms said they would grow employment, and just four per cent said they would increase wages. If you don't pay Australian tax in the first place, lowering the statutory rate won't make you invest more anyway. Mr Turnbull's failure to properly crack down on multinational tax avoidance has allowed billions of dollars to slip out of the revenue system, and the end result of this largesse to the government's business mates is fewer resources for schools and fewer resources for our hospitals. Rather than racing to the bottom on company taxes, wouldn't the nation be better off investing in better schools and hospitals, building the infrastructure that our congested cities require and keeping taxes lower for middle Australians? When it comes to boosting corporate investment, a far more efficient approach is Labor's Australian investment guarantee. According to experts at Victoria University, the investment subsidy is between two and three times more effective as a stimulus to investment than the company tax rate cut. The government has already cut $715 million from Australian hospitals. Mr Turnbull and Mr Hunt face four key tests in this health portfolio in tonight's budget. First of all they must reverse their $715 million in cuts to public hospitals. Then they should drop their entire Medicare rebate freeze immediately, fix the private health insurance affordability crisis and scrap the tampon tax once and for all. Mr Turnbull can find $80 billion to give big business a tax handout but he can't properly fund Australia's health system. The Liberals' hospital cuts are doing real damage across Australia, surgeries are being delayed, emergency department waiting times are blowing out and doctors, nurses and hospital staff are under ever-increasing pressure. Mr Turnbull's cuts will see $11 million less going to public hospitals in my home state of Tasmania from 2017 to 2020. Surgeries will be delayed, nurses and doctors numbers will decline and emergency department wait times will increase as a result of Mr Turnbull's cuts. These cuts to Tasmania's public hospitals are equivalent to 16,000 emergency department visits, 3,055 cataract operations and 1,825 deliveries. It says it all about Mr Turnbull's priorities that he's happy to give big business a tax handout but won't properly fund our public hospitals and give Australians the health care they need and that they deserve. In 2016-17, Tasmania's emergency departments saw a record number of people, with 156,000 presentations. This is an increasing problem, as there are 8,045 more presentations a year to Tasmania's emergency departments than before the federal Liberals were elected. When you or your loved one gets sick or is unwell, the last thing you want or need is to be turned away because your local hospital doesn't have enough staff or beds to give you the care you need. Every dollar cut from our public hospitals is a dollar cut from our sickest and most vulnerable patients. Access to health care, as we've said many times on this side, should be determined by your Medicare card, not by your credit card. But while Mr Turnbull's priorities defend big business and while he keeps siding with private health insurers, our public hospitals continue to be put last. Australians know that Labor will always invest more money in public hospitals and in the system than the Liberals, who want nothing more than to privatise and Americanise our world-class healthcare system. We've got to talk about the education cuts in the short time I've got left. They're happening right now and we're seeing our kids being disadvantaged because of the wrong choices of this government. Mr Turnbull talks a big game in education but he doesn't play well at all. He's long on rhetoric and he's short on action. Mr Turnbull has the opportunity to reverse $17 billion worth of cuts to school funding over the next 10 years, but this budget will have a direct effect on the cost of education and the resources that are going to go to students in the next couple of years. We want to see this government not only be more constructive but reverse some of the positively unhelpful decisions they have made in education. Once again, tonight's budget is a chance for Mr Turnbull to wake up to himself and choose our schools and our kids' education over giving corporate tax cuts to the big banks. The budget is also a great opportunity for the government to get rid of its plans to cut the energy supplements for seniors. It's time for Mr Turnbull to stand up for pensioners instead of the dodgy bankers by dropping his cuts to the energy supplement and by abandoning his plan to increase the pension age to 70. Axing the energy supplement to two million Australians, including 400,000 aged pensioners, will mean a cut to new pensioners of $365 a year for singles and $550 a year for couples. This cut was first proposed by Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison in the 2016 budget but they still haven't been able to get it through the Senate because it's just not credible. Then there's the government's plan to increase the pension age to 70. As we heard earlier today, that means Australia would have an older pensioner age than the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand. In the first four years alone, around 375,000 Australians will have to work longer before they can access the pension. It has been almost four years since Joe Hockey first announced the plan to increase the pension age to 70 and, in a flight of fiscal fantasy, Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison are still booking a $3.6 billion save to the budget bottom line, despite the measure not even being introduced in this term of the parliament. But the Prime Minister still has time. There are still a few hours before the Treasurer's budget speech. He can reverse his cuts to schools, reverse his cuts to hospitals, reverse his tax cuts to the big banks and his big business mates, and start governing in the interests of all Australians. 16:58 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I follow Senator Bilyk in this debate with some disappointment because I know and like Senator Bilyk but, regrettably, she just follows the Labor lies about health and education. I see some school students up in the gallery and they would have heard Senator Bilyk say that the government has cut funding to schools and to health. These are the facts of the matter: under the new national health agreement, where the Commonwealth funds most of the states to provide hospital and health services, the coalition is on track to double funding from $13.3 billion in 2012-13—when the Labor Party was in charge of the government—to a record $28.3 billion under the coalition. I repeat that: the coalition is doubling the billions of dollars that come under the national health agreement for the states' hospitals. It is doubling what Labor paid, yet Labor speakers continue the mantra that became quite famous at the last federal election and actually has become part of the lexicon of our nation when you want to demonstrate something that is an outright and absolute lie: the 'Mediscare' campaign by the Labor Party at the last federal election. Around the country, they got on the telephones and started telephoning people at random, saying the coalition was going to cut Medicare, which was a complete and absolute untruth. It was an unmitigated lie, and yet the Labor Party perpetrated that lie—the 'Mediscare' campaign—all the way through the election, and it did result in changes of votes. But, as I've just indicated, the fact is that, under the coalition's plan, funding for the national health agreement will double to $28 billion. Madam Deputy President, the coalition's increase in hospital funding is up to 6.5 per cent per annum, and that is more than four times population growth, which is only 1.6 per cent, and more than three times the consumer price index, which is at 1.9 per cent. So popular is the coalition's offering on health that New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory have signed up to the Commonwealth national health agreement, and half of the governments that have signed up with glee and relish are, indeed, Labor state or territory governments. Madam Deputy President, we continue to fund hospitals and health very, very appropriately. The 'abolition of Medicare' as Labor called it, in one of the greatest lies of our generation, has been proven to be false. This government has established the Medicare Guarantee Fund, which guarantees by legislation—the Medicare Guarantee Act—the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Indeed, Madam Deputy President, under the coalition government, more Australian patients are seeing doctors without having to reach for their wallets. At 85.8 per cent in the period July 2017 to March this year, we have seen the highest bulk-billing rate at any time since the inception of Medicare—and that's under a coalition government. The GP bulk-billing rate is up by 3.8 per cent since Labor was last in government and more than 97.7 million bulk-billed GP visits were provided to patients between July 2017 and March 2018. That's an extra 3.7 million services bulk-billed under Medicare during the coalition's term of office. I might say, Madam Deputy President— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Macdonald, I might raise a point of order on you. I've been called a lot of things around here lately, but never 'Madam'! I let you get away with four. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I do apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President. When I started my speech the Deputy President was sitting in the chair and, I must say, I was so intense in exposing Labor's lies that I hadn't glanced back at the chair and seen the changeover. So I do, indeed, apologise for that. I would call you many things, Senator, but I certainly would not call you 'Madam'! I just spent a week in hospital getting my knee replaced. I had one of the best knee surgeons going. He did a wonderful job with me, and there was an assistant surgeon and an anaesthetist. Curiously, I paid the assistant surgeon very little; I paid the anaesthetist nothing; I paid my surgeon a little bit. I would have paid him triple what I paid him, because he did such a wonderful job. But with most of those specialists, including the cardiac specialist—one of the best cardiac physicians in Queensland, who looked after me because of the valve in my heart—there was no bill at all from them. That's all paid by Medicare. That is typical of the growth of bulk-billing under the coalition government and the guarantees that the coalition have given. This is the Medicare scheme that the Labor Party told all and sundry at the last election that the coalition was going to abolish. Time won't permit me to go through everything, but I will quickly turn to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Since coming to government, the coalition has, on average, listed one new medicine a day on the PBS, which is the scheme for the hugely subsidised pharmaceutical provisions given out to Australians. Those new medicines are worth around $8.3 billion to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This includes new cancer treatments, some of which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, that are now available for a $6.40 payment on concession, or $39.50 for general patients, per script. I remember I was involved with Senator Smith in the campaign to get the cure for hepatitis C onto the PBS. That's been a wonderful boon for people who suffer from that disease. The coalition continues to increase the funding for the PBS, and bulk-billing is increasing under the coalition. I would like to respond to some of the lies on school funding that have been propagated by the Labor Party—not just with comments but with actual facts. Under the coalition all schools will reach 20 per cent of the SRS by 2023. Investment in public schools will rise from $6.8 billion last year to $7.4 billion this year and yet the Labor Party say we've cut funding to schools. The facts simply show the truth—$8 billion next year and $13.3 billion in 2027. I have to mention the record levels of recurrent funding for Catholic schools, totalling some $6.6 billion this year and nearly $9.8 billion in 2027. On average, funding will grow by around 3.7 per cent per student per year. These are the facts of the health and education debate. Forget Labor's lies, forget Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign and look at the facts—they show government funding increasing. (Time expired) 17:08 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise to speak on the MPI and join with Senator Bilyk in calling on the coalition to see sense and restore some fairness to Australia in tonight's federal budget. Before I go into those comments, the problem for Senator Macdonald, in his comments, is that it's not just the Labor opposition which is condemning the government's cuts to health and education. When you look at the issue of health, you see that the Australian Medical Association, which represents the nation's doctors, has joined with Labor in decrying the cuts to health and the impact that this is having on the public hospital system. A couple of months ago, the AMA issued their public hospital report card, again revealing the impact of the Prime Minister's cuts and showing that: The current funding formula will doom our public hospitals to fail, and patients will suffer as a result. Even worse, the AMA says that the Prime Minister wants to lock in these cuts for another five years. The AMA goes on to say that the latest Commonwealth funding offer at February's COAG meeting, which is effectively a continuation of the current agreement: … would lead to a continuation of the prevailing underperformance of hospitals due to significant underfunding and insufficient capacity. So it's not just the Labor opposition talking about this issue; there are other independent bodies which support our proposition. We see business profits at record levels, the highest since the GFC hit, which is good news, but wage growth is still at historically low levels—and we touched on that yesterday when I was at the Labour Day march in Brisbane. The Premier came out very strongly and talked about launching a parliamentary inquiry into allegations of wage theft. I welcome that move. That is the action of a government which does care about the real issues that are impacting on families. People are hurting because of rising health costs, rising insurance premiums and high energy bills. Despite this, we see the coalition government cutting hundreds of millions of dollars out of hospitals across the country. In Queensland patients are copping a $160 million cut to hospitals, which is the equivalent of taking 1,435 nurses out of our wards. This is on top of the over $1 billion owed to Queensland that the coalition had failed to pay until recently. We note that, in a win for Queensland, there was an agreement from the Treasurer last month to pay around a third of what is owed to Queensland hospitals going back to 2014-15 and 2015-16. That's $300 million in back pay to the Queensland public hospital system, but there's more to come. We're yet to see how that's going to play out. We know that the Prime Minister successfully implemented his GP tax, which means that there are more out-of-pocket expenses for Australians when they go to see the doctor—in going to see a specialist there is $12 more in out-of-pocket expenses. Turning to education, I've been in my duty electorates of Maranoa and Flynn recently. It is important to note the impact of these education cuts on local schools. Warwick State High School is going to lose $770,000 over a two-year period; Warwick West State School, $440,000; and Warwick Central State School, $240,000. In Roma, the state college will miss out on $780,000 over a two-year period. In Stanthorpe, the high school will lose $580,000, while the state school will lose $270,000. In Flynn, another regional electorate, Gladstone State High School will lose $1.35 million over two years; Toolooa State High School, $870,000; Gladstone Central State School will lose $300,000; Gladstone West State School, $570,000; and Gladstone South State School, $220,000 over two years. In the northern suburbs of Brisbane, Pine Rivers State High School will have $1,060,000 ripped out of its budget and North Lakes State College will lose $2½ million. I could go on. The Catholic sector makes up 12 per cent of the $17 billion in cuts. That means that Catholic schools stand to lose over $2 billion in funding over the next two years. We stand with the Catholic sector, and I know that the Catholic sector welcomes Labor's approach. This is the time for balance to be restored. It's only a Labor government that will restore balance and fairness to Australia to start bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. 17:13 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance, which, frankly, is a waste of taxpayers' money. For about an hour we'll sit here and throw political hand grenades at each other and talk about who is best fit to run the place. I know you wouldn't, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—you're fair dinkum. I've done a lot of work with you over many years. When I leave this place next year I'll look back and say, 'Senator Sterle? He was one of the genuine blokes on the other side.' But here we are talking about an issue that is all about politics, instead of working together to make things better. It infuriates me. I'll tell you a secret, Mr Acting Deputy President, at the time of the 2013 election, I think most of those in the Labor Party knew they were going to lose. The polls were terrible. It was pretty clear that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era was coming to an end. Believe it or not, and I would never try to mislead you, Mr Acting Deputy President, there were promises made by the other side that they were going to spend $80 billion—this huge amount of money—on education and on health. Of course, they were never funded. The money was never there. It was a political promise, a piece of propaganda—that's what it was. Those promises were never funded, because the Labor Party knew full well they were going to be thrown out of government, but Labor used those figures today. Those figures are dream figures. They were never true figures, never funded. They were figures plucked out of the sky and would never have been produced, even if they had won the election, believe me. Now we play this political game on this matter of public importance put forward by Senator Collins. The words 'like axing the energy supplement' really caught my eye. Why was the energy supplement brought in? I will tell you why. It was to compensate pensioners and low-income earners and those on social security for the extra cost of electricity. Because of what? Because of a carbon tax. Remember the 2010 election? I'm sure Senator Ketter would. I know you would, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, remember the 2010 election when former Prime Minister Gillard was the Prime Minister. She said those famous words, the big statement: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Senator McGrath would remember it well, would you not? However, it was a cliffhanger of an election. I remember it well. The coalition won 73 seats; Labor won 72. Enter Mr Tony Windsor from New England. Whose side was he on? He was on Labor's side. Of course, Mr Oakeshott, the then former National Party member from Lyne, which includes Port Macquarie, sided with Labor. One of the deals they agreed to was that they would set up the multiparty political gathering of whatever it was to look at climate change and what we are going to do about a carbon tax. What was it called? It was called the multiparty climate change forum or some stupid thing. It was going to change the planet. In came the carbon tax and so here we have this supplement to those pensioners. And it was a fair thing to say we're going to supplement your social security, your pensions, because the electricity price will go up because Prime Minister Gillard broke her promise, simple as that. Mr Tony Abbott said if he won the election in 2013, the carbon tax would go and it did, but that supplement has stayed on. We're supplementing people, especially pensioners and low-income earners and those on social security, for electricity prices boosted by a carbon tax that doesn't exist. In this debate today, which is about wasting taxpayers' money, we are playing politics—probably doing little for the Australian people—and getting prepared for the budget tonight. I have learned a lot in politics since I've been here. Do you remember the last election on 2 July 2016? Opposition leader Bill Shorten said, 'They will privatise Medicare.' Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you've been in business, you have been a truckie, you have carted furniture and you know a fair bit about business, probably quite different to many of those opposite over there. Mr Acting Deputy President, would you buy a business that earns $10,000 a week but costs $23,000 a week to run? I wouldn't. It's a clear loss. Medicare collects around $10 billion of Medicare levies and spends about $23 billion on Medicare pay-outs. Who will buy a business or a coffee shop earning $10,000 a week through the till and costing $23,000 a week to run? That's a terrible business. Who would ever buy that? There might be some gullible people out there who want to invest but I don't think you would find too many who will put to that sort of money in to buy a business like Medicare when those opposite said it would be privatised—just crazy politics. Let's look at Medicare. We're guaranteeing Medicare and putting in record levels of funding with an additional $2.4 billion over the next four years. That's a fact. We're listing life-changing medications on the PBS. As Senator Macdonald said, we've listed over 1,600 new and amended medicines worth $8.2 billion We're debating the hospitals. My memory might not be very good but I remember a bloke; his name was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He said to the Australian people, 'I will fix the hospital system and the buck will stop with me.' Does everyone remember that quote? You should do. You could probably google it up. Well, surely, Mr Rudd fixed the hospital system. What are we doing arguing about hospitals? Mr Rudd fixed them. Surely he honoured his word, or did he? Perhaps he didn't fix them. Perhaps the buck didn't stop with him either. These are the politics we play come budget night. Altogether our government will invest more than $103.3 billion over the next four years in hospitals. I will give you some figures. Commonwealth funding for public hospital services has increased from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, when we were in opposition, to a record $22.7 billion in 2021, or 70 per cent over this period. On school funding, in 2017 we spent $17.5 billion on schools and by 2027 we will be spending more than $31.1 billion. That spending will almost double between now and 2027, so the next 10 years. We're growing funding each year by more than $1 billion. And so the politics goes on with Labor's retiree tax. The Labor Party's proposed $56 billion retirement tax will hit 875,000 Australians, including low-income earners, retirees and pensioners. I'm getting plenty of emails on the franking credits issue! People who are self-funded retirees, husbands and wives on $40,000 a year, are going to lose between $10,000 and $12,000 a year. If you're taking home $40,000 a year and you haven't even got your hand out to taxpayers, why are you going to be hit? This is a big issue. I reckon this is why the polls have turned against Labor, because they're going to dig into the people who've worked hard and saved their money. Of course if their money's in the bank they'd be lucky to get 2½ or three per cent as interest rates are so low; the official cash rate is 1.5 per cent. So Labor are going to take money off them, the self-funded retirees. They backflipped on pensioners. They say, 'We won't touch the pensioners,' but the original plan was that the $55 billion would include them. I have no doubt there will be a lot more said about that as we run towards the election. The Liberal-Nationals government is delivering a record $75 billion in investment in infrastructure and transport projects, focused on building local communities, connecting the regions and our cities, busting congestion and boosting productivity while creating local jobs. The government has committed to a 10-year infrastructure investment plan. I'm glad to see this, and I hope we hear more about it tonight when Treasurer Morrison delivers his budget—especially roads in regional areas, where many of us still drive on dirt roads. Many of those in the city wouldn't know what a dirt road is. 17:22 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Here we are on budget night, and the place is alive as, over in other parts of this building, commentators and journalists sort through the entrails of the federal budget and ask themselves questions. Who got the pound of flesh? Who has been heard? Who has been brought in and who has been shut out? I would like to ask some questions that occur to me as a young person and on behalf of a generation that is so rarely heard in this place. I do wonder whether there will be anything in this budget to address the intergenerational theft that is inaction on climate change, or whether we will continue to see this criminal destruction of an entire generation's future by this government. I also wonder whether there will be any action to address the disgraceful poverty gap that has become the youth allowance in this country. Some in the government have proposed in recent weeks that they could live on Newstart's $40 a day. Well, I would ask them to give youth allowance's $32 a week for a single person a go, and I would refer them to the recent Anglicare research that suggests that if you are a single person living on youth allowance there are a grand total of three rental properties in the entirety of Australia that are affordable and appropriate for you. I would also wonder whether this government will reverse the decision that it made in the 2014 budget to cut the funding for the national youth advocacy body, leaving the young people of Australia without a federally funded youth voice for the first time in 30 years. We will find out in a few hours the answers to these questions, and I hold in my heart a small grain of hope that we might get some positive ones. But, given this government's track record in this area, I very much doubt that it will take the opportunity to right the wrongs it has perpetrated against this generation in the last six years. I hope that I am wrong, but I and the young people of Australia are not holding our breath. I thank the chamber for its time. 17:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The only consistent thing that we have seen from the federal government is that they have no real interest in investing in the Northern Territory. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison are more interested in giving an $80 billion tax cut to big business and the banks than they are in improving the lives of the people of the Northern Territory. In the Territory, we remember this history of poor treatment at the hands of the Turnbull government. We remember the disastrous budget last year, with the savage GST cuts of $2 billion over four years. Now this year we have a drop of $1.4 billion compared with those projections over the next four years. This is on top of the cuts from 2017. So the people of the Territory remember this government's flip-flops on a commitment to remote housing. The 'Will they or won't they?' game on matching the NT government's $1.1 billion commitment to remote housing went on for months until only a fortnight ago, when the Treasurer committed to $550 million over five years—with the national partnership agreement expiring on 30 June. The government now needs to follow through with a commitment to sit down with the NT government, Aboriginal organisations and community representatives to enter good-faith negotiations around issues like leasing and funding for town camps. There is also the disaster that is known as the CDP, the Community Development Program, where 15,000 participants were slapped with so-called serious failures in just two years to 30 June 2017. There are currently around 33,000 CDP participants, most of whom are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Serious failures were applied five or more times to 3,702 individuals, and for those whose fines were partially waived the average time off welfare was 2.4 weeks. Since it began operating in July 2015, 406,626 financial penalties have been applied under CDP. About 80 per cent of participants are Indigenous people living in remote regions. The message that is being sent consistently under this government is the entrenchment of poverty and the entrenchment of disadvantage for the most vulnerable in our society. A report by The Australia Institute found that the scheme had helped fewer than one in five people into an ongoing job and that fewer than one in 10 remained in that job for six months or more. This is a $1.3 billion policy failure. Under the federal government's school funding model, every single school in the Northern Territory will lose funding. Over the next two years, the Northern Territory will lose $70 million of the Turnbull federal government's funding for its schools. But Labor is going to restore every dollar of the $17 billion the Liberals have cut from our schools across the country. The people of the Northern Territory were blindsided when MYEFO was released late last year. There was a $15 million cut to the Territory's premier tertiary institution, Charles Darwin University. This was in addition to $70 million in cuts to the Territory's education sector more broadly. And to make matters worse, the Liberals are attempting to silence educators by banning all student media organisations from the budget lock-up this evening. They can't face them. In the Northern Territory, we are at a serious disadvantage. According to the 2016 census, only 17.1 per cent of Territorians have completed a bachelor's degree or higher. This is in contrast to the national average of 22 per cent, a difference of five per cent overall. We've already seen orchestrated leaks to some local Territory media around big promises on road funding. Let's unpack some of those big promises on road funding. Let's see beyond the smoke and mirrors in the rear view mirror to those roads. There are media reports that tonight's budget will have a $180 million to upgrade the Central Arnhem Road to a two-lane sealed road. The Central Arnhem Road is a dirt road. If this is accurate, that's absolutely wonderful. But let's unpack that $180 million—if this is the case. It costs a lot of money to upgrade a road. Roughly speaking, it costs around a million dollars for every kilometre. The Central Arnhem Road is a 663-kilometre dirt road. Maybe the first 50 to 80 kilometres are sealed, where it takes you from the Stuart Highway to Barunga and Beswick. But, beyond that—to Bulman to Weemol and then off to Ramingining and Gapuwiyak and up to Nhulunbuy—it's all dirt road. So we're talking around 600 kilometres of dirt road. If we look at about a million dollars a kilometre to seal, that's way over $180 million—way over. So there really are smoke and mirrors going on here about the kind of planning and investment that is being touted for the remote regions of the Northern Territory. I want to see the details this evening when the budget is released. The media is also reporting that the federal government has committed $1.4 million to land transport infrastructure projects. Again, let's see what the reality is here. We know the federal government does not have a good record at all on investment and infrastructure in northern Australia. Let's have a look at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—oh, a $5 billion fund! It's nearly four years later, and not a dollar has been spent. Here we have the chairperson of that fund resign. Still the people of northern Australia see nothing from that $5 billion fund. This government is so seriously out of touch with Territorians, they expect us to cop $16 million in cuts to public hospitals in the Northern Territory, cuts which are equivalent to 24,000 emergency department visits, 4,443 cataract extractions or 2,655 births. Under this government, elective surgery waiting times are the worst they've been since records began. Every dollar cut from our public hospitals in the Northern Territory is a dollar cut from our sickest and most vulnerable patients. Access to health care should be determined by your Medicare card, not your credit card. Territorians will be looking at tonight's budget to see if this government is going to fund recommendations out of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. This royal commission was announced by this Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in 2016. Now this government won't commit the funds to see recommendations implemented. The people of the Northern Territory deserve more than spin and smoke and mirrors out of this budget. It's a fact of life we do not have the revenue base and capacity to raise funds the same as the other states. We do have a high degree of entrenched disadvantage. This disadvantage continues to remain entrenched under the policies and the smoke and mirror financial bucket that you say is going to help us. Territorians, like all Australians, deserve a fair go. But are they going to get it in tonight's budget? 17:34 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria In my two short years in this place, never have I seen a matter of public importance more in need of a fact check than this one. It is an MPI full of untruths and misstatements, and it is clearly an attempt to mislead and deceive. Let me go through, one by one, the false claims and errors made in the MPI alone, let alone the contributions by Labor senators during this debate. First the MPI claims that there have been cuts to Medicare. Fact check: it's wrong. In fact, Medicare funding will increase by $2.8 billion over the next four years. That is increased funding from this year to next year to the year after to the year after. This year is record funding, next year is record funding and the year after that and the year after that will also be record funding. That doesn't sound like a cut to me. Next the MPI claims that there've been hospital cuts. Fact check: it's wrong. Funding for hospitals, in fact, has increased from just $13 billion in 2012-13, when Labor was last in government, to a forecast of $22 billion in 2020-21. That's an increase this year, next year, the year after and so on and so forth to record levels of funding. There are school cuts, the MPI claims. Again, that is wrong. Over the next 10 years, $25.3 billion of extra funding on top of the already legislated funding that was in place will flow to schools. That represents a 77 per cent increase on current levels in the next decade. The MPI goes on to claim that there is an $80 billion tax handout to the top end of town. In that one claim alone there are multiple errors. Firstly, it's not an $80 billion tax handout; it's a $65 billion cost to revenue over a decade. Secondly, it's not to the top end of town. As Labor senators know, $24 billion of those cuts, which have already been legislated, in fact go to businesses with less than $50 million in revenue. I don't think, under any Australian's understanding, that that would be the top end of town. Thirdly, the MPI claims that it's a handout. It's not a handout at all. A handout would be giving a company money that it didn't earn but that someone else earned and has had taken from them, but this tax cut just returns to companies the money they have earned themselves and allows them to reinvest it in their business and in their workforce. Also, this $80 billion figure doesn't include the $30 billion of increased revenue that the Treasury estimates will take place as a result of the tax cuts, which halves the estimated cost to government revenue. I think this draws out an interesting point about the Labor Party's position on tax cuts for companies. Where exactly do they stand? We know they support tax cuts for small businesses with up to $2 million in revenue, and we know that they don't support extending tax cuts to businesses with over $50 million in revenue, but what about the businesses in between $2 million of revenue per year and $50 million of revenue per year? There are thousands and thousands of businesses in this range. They have hundreds of thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands of shareholders. Today, standing here, we still do not know what the Labor Party's plans are for them. If the Labor Party win the next election, will the tax cuts, which have already been legislated for that group of businesses, stay in place, or will those businesses face an increase in taxes? It's up to the Labor Party to clarify. What's the real issue here? What's the real division between the Labor Party and the coalition here? It's certainly true to say—and I'm happy to acknowledge it—that the Labor Party propose to spend more money than the coalition proposes to spend. They do propose to spend more on health. They do propose to spend more on education. But just because they've promised to spend more doesn't mean that the real increases that this government is delivering today, now, in reality, amounts to a cut. And, although they may be happy to claim that they can make the figures add up and that they can deliver all this increased spending, I have my doubts. I'm waiting to see how it adds up. I doubt, even with the $200 billion of tax increases that they have already promised that they will legislate, that that will even cover the increased spending. Even off the back of low-income retirees and people of modest means who've decided to invest in a second home and are negatively gearing that home in an attempt to grow their family wealth, even off the back of those tax increases alone, I suspect the Labor Party have promised to spend even more money than they will raise in extra revenue. But let's talk about some of the features that are actually going to be in this budget. One which has been confirmed by the Treasurer and Minister for Finance is a new cap of 23.9 per cent on tax as a percentage of GDP. I think that is a really worthwhile initiative and a really worthy initiative that deserves all of our support, because there should be a limit beyond which government will not grow. There should be an amount of tax that the government says it will not take any more than, and 23.9 per cent is a long-term historical average of federal governments' tax take. The Labor Party have thus far refused to commit to any limit on the amount of tax they'll take from individuals, any limit on the amount of tax they'll take from businesses or any limit on the amount of tax they'll take from retirees. If Labor were left to their own devices, tax as a percentage of GDP would rise far beyond 23.9 per cent. Who knows where it will end? They refuse to nominate any ceiling on the amount of tax they're willing to take. I want to respond to one other issue that I heard raised in this debate, in Senator Steele-John's short contribution on behalf of young people in this country. While Senator Steele-John is younger than me, I am also a young person and I too have an interest in the future of this country and the future of young people. It amazes me that Senator Steele-John thinks one of the priorities for the budget tonight should be to create taxpayer-funded advocacy services for young people. As a young person now, and as an even younger person in the past, there's nothing I find more patronising than the idea that young people aren't capable of advocating for themselves, that they somehow need a helping hand from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded advocacy and that we should measure the worth of a federal government, with all the things it will do in the budget and all the things it will do, on whether or not there are going to be taxpayer-funded youth advocacy services. But that is a measure of the narrow priorities and the narrow focus of the Greens. 17:41 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales We've heard from Senator Paterson, speaking in grandiose terms, about the need for a fact check on what we have here. If he was sincere, he would apply a fact check to his own government. This is where we see the lies, and there will be more lies tonight. We'll be hearing from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, and it will be quite sickening. They'll be out there talking about redistribution and making Australia a fairer country. That's the last thing that will happen out of this budget. Why can we say that emphatically? Because of the state of the country now. When you look at the distribution of wealth, the level of inequality is being driven harder and harder because of the policies of the Liberals and the Nationals and how they run this country. The figures are deeply shocking. The top one per cent now own more wealth than the bottom 74 per cent of Australians. This income inequality is so extreme; it's the worst it's been in 76 years. Why is that? It's because of the policies of the Turnbull government. We also know that wage growth is the lowest it's been and, at the same time, company profits are up at a record rate. Last year, in 2017, there was a 40 per cent increase in company profits. What did we hear from the government? How many times have we heard Senator Paterson and his Liberal and Nationals colleagues tell us we need to have a company tax cut? Really, is there no end to the lengths that they will go to look after their mates so that their profits can be even greater? The government has let business off the hook time and time again so they can increase their profits. Look at the situation with regard to the cuts that they brought in on weekend wages for some of the lowest paid workers—vulnerable people doing it tough already. What does this government do? Open it up so that they can cut more wages. There are so many people unemployed and underemployed in this country. Today I was with Grant Courtney from the meatworkers union. We've been working together on the issue of live exports. Some of the information he shared, when we had meetings today, is that there are 8,000 unemployed and underemployed meatworkers in this country looking for work. But what do we get from the Liberals and the Nationals? They want to keep the live sheep trade going, because it serves the interests of just a few rich farmers. The majority of farmers by far are not happy with the current situation. We could have a win-win here: a win for ending the cruelty and a win for regional Australia in ensuring that there is jobs growth and a boost to the economy. Again, we hear all the rhetoric from the Nationals about their commitment to country folk, but we don't get any real significant change. We'll be hearing the budget speech shortly. It should be a budget that is about reducing the inequality in this country. How should we be doing that? Obviously homes for all is something that's critical. We need to have decent well-paid jobs where there are safe working conditions. The issue of Newstart really does need to be addressed. The urgency of bringing in an increase to Newstart should not be overlooked in this budget. The number of people in this country living in poverty is simply unacceptable. We need a very broad renationalisation program, starting, clearly, with energy and transport. So much of our public transport is now in public hands. There are many other exciting proposals around that people are getting behind. They are understanding how rotten this government is and how unfair it is. When it comes to Labor, Labor need to watch themselves. So often, when they're in opposition, they're a different beast. When they get into government, the tentacles of neo-Liberalism can capture them to often a similar extent to the Liberal-Nationals rollover. We've seen the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen say that when the budget has returned to surplus then you can look at a further tax reform of both personal and company tax. There is Labor talking about cuts to company tax. That would be a disaster. They need to sign off and just say that is not where they're going to go. They need to be emphatic and, when they get into government, actually stick with policies that address inequality, ensure that there are homes for all and particularly work with the union movement to change the rules. We need to bring back that ILO recognised right—the right to strike, the right for political strikes and the right to strike for wages and conditions. That is essential if we're going to drive these changes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 That concludes the discussion of a matter of public importance. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS National Schools Constitutional Convention 60 Tabling 60 17:46 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I table a communique from the 23rd National Schools Constitutional Convention held at Old Parliament House from 20 March to 22 March 2018. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 60 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Auditor-General's reports Nos 1, 2 and 3 of 2018 60 Consideration 60 17:46 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. Auditor-General's reports for 2017-18 1. No. 34—Performance audit—Defence's implementation of the First Principles Review: Department of Defence— Report. [Certified 17 April 2018] Corrigendum. [Certified 24 April 2018] 2. No. 35—Performance audit—Management of special appropriations: Across entities. [Certified17 April 2018] 3. No. 36—Performance audit—Corporate planning in the Australian public sector 2017-18: Across entities. [Certified 23 April 2018] 4. No. 37—Performance audit—Australian Broadcasting Corporation – Complaints management: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. [Certified 3 May 2018] I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement, East Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement, North East Regional Forest Agreement 60 Consideration 60 17:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. These are amendments to the regional forest agreements for the Central Highlands, East Gippsland and the north-east regions of Victoria. Here is a very simple summary of what these amendments to our logging laws do. They allow ongoing industrial-scale forest-and-wildlife destroying clear-fell logging to continue in our precious forests for another two years and, outrageously, to continue with exemptions from our country's environmental protection laws. These logging laws are outdated, they are destructive and they are not achieving the environmental and economic purposes for which they were intended. Instead of extending them, the federal government and the Victorian Labor government should have scrapped them, should have sent them to the dustbin of history where they belong. I introduced legislation into this place three months ago that recognised that the ongoing logging of our precious forests is a question of justice across generations. We are stealing a healthy future from our young people today. I challenge all of us in this place to consider how we will feel if we can't offer our children and grandchildren the same experiences in the natural world that we were able to have and that we experienced as children, if they can't enjoy camping by a crystal clear river fringed by wonderful forest, if they can't marvel at birds like the sooty owls, powerful owls, creatures like Leadbeater's possums or the gliders which are critically endangered—their homes, their nesting sites and their food supplies have been destroyed—that live in these forests The regional forest agreements, when they were introduced 20 years ago, were meant to provide long-term sustainable forest management to protect these complex ecosystems and to ensure the health of the wildlife living in these forests as well as to govern the production of timber from these forests and maintain jobs. They have failed in every regard. By extending these logging laws for a further two years, the federal government and the Victorian Andrews Labor government have teamed up to continue to destroy our precious wildlife, destroy our carbon stores, trash our carbon stores, pollute our air, dry up our water supplies and undermine the tourism hot spots and the current and future jobs of locals who rely on all of these. Under the regional forest agreements that have been extended for a further two years, these forests are being logged, mulched, pulped and burnt. The extension to the RFA in the Central Highlands area will allow logging to continue to occur in the habitat of the Victorian state animal emblem, the Leadbeater's possum, which is critically endangered. Its primary habitat, the amazing, beautiful mountain ash forests, are in such dire condition that their ecosystem is now listed, in itself, as critically endangered. Instead of extending the regional forest agreements, we need to scrap them and move the remaining just 13 per cent of the industry that is still logging our native forests into sustainable plantation forests. We're in a situation where 87 per cent of the wood that is coming from Australia is coming from plantations. That percentage is rising every year. We do not need to continue to log our precious native forests in order to be growing wood. Wood is a great product when it's produced sustainably, when it comes from plantations and when it comes from agroforestry and farm forestry. That's where the bulk of the wood in Australia is now coming from. The native forest based industry is the absolute rump of the industry, and yet these logging laws are just continuing the regime for another two years—and continuing it with exemptions from our federal environmental protection laws. These measures extend for another two years the provision that logging operations will be exempt under the conditions of our Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is outrageous. It's not what the people of Australia want. When people find out that our precious forests are still being logged, they are outraged, and rightly so. Governments that are continuing to allow this ongoing logging are going to bear the brunt of that at the ballot box. It will be on their heads. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Queensland Teachers' Union 61 Consideration 61 17:53 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This document is a response from the Queensland Teachers' Union to a resolution passed by this chamber back on 20 March. I should say up-front for full disclosure that I'm a member of the Queensland Teachers' Union. I made no contribution to the response from the Queensland Teachers' Union, but their response does not surprise me. The resolution was laughable and ludicrous and yet another case of the absurd teacher bashing and the absurd attacks on our education system that we see from this government, which harm not just teachers but, much more importantly, our students—our young people—and the education system that they go through. We also saw this attitude not very long ago from the member for Bowman, who is also, perhaps not coincidentally, from the state of Queensland. The original resolution that this letter is a response to was from a Queensland senator, making ridiculous attacks on teachers. I only worked as a high school teacher for a relatively short period of time, but I can tell you it's a much harder job than the one I've got now—much harder. The level of support that we all have in this place to do our job is massively greater than what teachers have, and teachers have to do it hour after hour, day after day, under significant pressure. They are paid a third or less than a third of what we get paid and get ridiculous, stupid attacks continually from our political institutions and our political leaders as part of the work that they do. What we need in this country is to have much greater support for and much greater recognition of the important and very valuable role that teachers already play. Inasmuch as our education system does not deliver what it needs to deliver, that is not the fault of teachers but the fault of governments in both the resource constraints and the politicised garbage that they are forced to endure has been put on them by governments, including this one that saw fit to move the ridiculous notion that this response relates to. The idea that somehow or other you can teach students without talking about political issues—I'm not talking about party political issues but about human reality—is ridiculous. The year that I spent teaching—2015—was the hundred-year anniversary of Gallipoli and the Anzacs. How can you teach something like that without talking about the politics of the time? How can you teach students about the Iraq war without talking about the politics of the time? How can you teach people—students, anybody—about the Eureka Stockade without talking about the politics of the time? It is ludicrous. The original motion that, very unfortunately, was passed by this chamber sought to impose the political straitjacket of the view of the government of the day on teachers and on students. That is something we should always be speaking out against. I welcome this response from the Queensland Teachers' Union, and I add my voice not just to this response but to the campaign by the Australian Education Union and teachers around the country to get better funding for schools. As part of all of their campaigning for better funding for schools they do not talk just about better pay for teachers, which, frankly, they should, because teachers are hopelessly underpaid for the incredibly important work that they do. That members of the current government attack teachers for what they do I find abominable. We need to support teachers. It is not just about pay but about recognising the importance of the work. We all know of examples of other countries around the world where teachers are better resourced and, more importantly, better respected. The original motion passed by the Senate cast appalling disrespect towards teachers. It was under the guise of union bashing, but it was teacher bashing. Let me tell you, as a former teacher, that it was teacher bashing. If we really want to get better results in our schools we need to stop this stupid culture of teacher bashing, so I welcome this response. (Time expired) Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Consideration 62 COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security 63 Report 63 17:58 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on the review of the proposed amendments to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and move: That the Senate take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Senator SMITH 241710 I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows — The document was unavailable at t he t ime of publishing. Public Accounts and Audit Committee 63 Report 63 17:59 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I make a statement by way of a report relating to the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2018-19. I will also table the statement. Each year, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of the parliament. I rise this evening to fulfil this requirement and to make a statement on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these offices is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates. With regards to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee has been informed that the PBO is not seeking supplementation in the 2018-19 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office has advised the committee that existing resources will be sufficient for the PBO's estimated expenses in 2018-19. The committee notes that the PBO's special appropriation is expected to be fully drawn down by the end of 2020-21 and will continue to consult with the Parliamentary Budget Officer regarding future resourcing requirements. The committee also notes the recent independent review of the PBO, which made 16 recommendations. Under the direction of the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, work is continuing to implement these recommendations, including establishing a panel of expert advisers to consult on policy costings and fiscal policy issues, issuing an information paper outlining the PBO's costing processes, time frames and prioritisational framework, a consultation paper outlining how many parties could be included in post-election reports and the publication of information papers explaining the methodological issues associated with various policy costings. The committee endorses the proposed 2018-19 budget for the Parliamentary Budget Office and commends the PBO for its contributions to the parliament and the public through high-quality fiscal analysis and research. With regard to the Australian National Audit Office, the committee has been informed that the Australian National Audit Office is not seeking supplementation in the 2018-19 budget. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that the Australian National Audit Office estimated expenses can be met within existing resources and that he anticipates completing approximately 48 performance audits over the period. The Australian National Audit Office has flagged its continuing focus on audits of Commonwealth entity annual performance statements. The committee looks forward to reviewing the Australian National Audit Office work in this area with a view to improving the quality of performance information provided under the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The committee endorses the proposed budget for the Australian National Audit Office in the 2018-19 period and thanks the ANAO for its work in supporting public accountability and transparency, including through audits under the Commonwealth performance framework. In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work programs and draft budget estimates of the PBO and Australian National Audit Office. As independent authorities, the PBO and the ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the work of the parliament. The committee thanks the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General for their work in support of the parliament and their efforts to maintain a strong working relationship with the committee. They have made themselves available for regular briefings and provided invaluable advice to the committee on a variety of matters. The committee looks forward to continuing these productive relationships into the future. Law Enforcement Committee 64 Report 64 18:03 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee on its inquiries into the examination of the annual reports of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police 2014-15. I also present two reports of the committee as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. Debate adjourned. Public Accounts and Audit Committee 64 Report 64 18:03 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 471, the Security of Overseas Missions, as well as executive minutes and responses on various reports. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I incorporate the tabling statement into Hansard. This document was not available at time of publishing. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Consideration 64 BILLS 65 BILLS Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2018 65

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2018

First Reading 65 18:06 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 65 18:07 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2018is an omnibus package of amendments to the Migration Act 1958, targeted at deregulating the migration advice industry. The Bill contains six measures, which I will discuss in greater detail. Schedule 1 to the Bill will give effect to Recommendation 1 of the 2014 Independent Review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the OMARA Review). This recommendation has long been supported by the Government and reaffirms our commitment to deregulation and to removing unnecessary red tape across industry sectors. The amendments made by Schedule 1 to the Bill will see lawyers who hold unrestricted practising certificates removed from regulation by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the MARA), so that they are regulated entirely by their relevant State or Territory legal professional body. In response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's recommendation, lawyers who hold a restricted practising certificate will have a two-year transitional period in which they may be both registered migration agents and restricted legal practitioners. This transitional period will apply to registered migration agents who hold a restricted practising certificate immediately before commencement of these amendments, as well as eligible restricted legal practitioners who obtain a restricted practising certificate or are registered as a migration agent with the MARA after commencement. During this two-year period, affected restricted legal practitioners may take necessary steps to organise and adapt their business affairs or obtain an unrestricted legal practising certificate. This would allow them to continue to provide immigration advice as an independent legal practitioner after the transitional period ends. This transitional period may be extended once, on application to the MARA, with reasonable cause, and for no longer than a further two years. In summary, the transitional period is up to four years, with no further extensions allowed. Once this transitional period has ended, these lawyers will also be removed from regulation by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the MARA), so that they are regulated entirely by their relevant State or Territory legal professional body. The Government recognises that the dual regulation of lawyers with practising certificates can pose an unnecessary administrative burden on such lawyer agents, who are already subject to a strict professional regulatory regime. The Government further recognises that deregulation of the migration advice industry should not be prioritised over the maintenance of important consumer protections. Mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that vulnerable consumers will continue to be protected from receiving incompetent migration advice, particularly from unscrupulous individuals holding themselves out to be experts. Lawyers with practising certificates intending to practice in the migration advice field will be able to access educational offerings to increase their knowledge, as they already do with other complex aspects of the legal profession. The relevant State and Territory legal professional bodies and statutory schemes underpinning them have a broader range of powers to resolve consumer-related issues than the scheme governing migration agents. This includes penalties outside of the MARA's jurisdiction, including financial penalties for improper conduct, and recommending compensation for affected clients. The legislative changes put forward by Schedule 2 will ensure that the period that an individual has to apply for repeat registration as a migration agent, following their completion of the required qualifications, is set out in delegated legislation rather than on the face of the Act. These changes will complement the introduction of a Graduate Diploma in Migration Law and Practice to replace the current Graduate Certificate. Once an individual possesses this qualification, it will never lapse, as is the case with most other tertiary qualifications. A Capstone Exam will be developed, that an individual must sit and pass within a certain period, in order to be accepted into the profession. This group of changes will significantly enhance the current educational requirements and will continue to improve the level of professionalism within the industry. The third Schedule to the Bill is aimed at amending or repealing various redundant provisions of the Migration Act. This will reflect the consolidation of the OMARA into the Department of Home Affairs, and that the OMARA powers can only be exercised by the Minister or a delegate. To this effect, this Schedule will repeal: powers of the Minister to refer agents to the MARA for disciplinary action powers authorising the sharing of personal information between the Department and the MARA the requirement for the OMARA to produce an annual report independent to the Department. Schedule 3 of the Bill also removes redundant references to the Migration Institute of Australia, which is no longer appointed as the MARA and will not be appointed in the future. Schedule 4 seeks to close an existing loophole that prevents the OMARA from refusing an application for registration as a migration agent, where the applicant does not respond to requests for further information. Presently, this means such incomplete applications remain unfinalised for an indefinite period. Schedule 5 to the Bill will amend the Migration Act to require a migration agent, who has been registered on a non-commercial basis, to notify the OMARA if there is a change in circumstances that has led to their providing immigration assistance on a commercial basis. This complements amendments made by the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017, and amendments that are proposed to be made to the Regulations under the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997. Those amendments make the higher, commercial charge the default charge, and require a migration agent to pay an adjusted charge if they paid the non-commercial charge but then give immigration assistance for fee or reward. Schedule 6 to the Bill amends the definitions of 'immigration assistance' and 'immigration representations' so that they include assisting a person to make a representation to the Minister in relation to revocation of a visa refusal or cancellation decision under section 501C or 501CA of the Migration Act. This reflects the intention that a person must be a registered migration agent, or be exempt for the requirements under the law to be a registered migration agent, in order to give such assistance. In conclusion, this Bill makes a number of important amendments that will streamline the operation of the migration advice industry. I commend the Bill to the Chamber. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 67 18:07 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2018 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 may be taken together for their remaining stages. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Australian Building and Construction Commissioner 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 18:08 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. BILLS 67 BILLS Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018, Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 67

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018

Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Returned from the House of Representatives 67 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 67

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 67 COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Membership 67 BILLS 67 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Act 2018 (Act No. 14, 2018) 68 Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Act 2018 (Act No. 15, 2018), Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Act 2018 (Act No. 16, 2018), Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Act 2018 (Act No. 17, 2018)., Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2017-2018 (Act No. 18, 2018), Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2017-2018 (Act No. 19, 2018), Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2018 (Act No. 20, 2018), Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Act 2018 (Act No. 21, 2018), Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Act 2018 (Act No. 22, 2018), Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Act 2018 (Act No. 23, 2018)., ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 24, 2018), Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Act 2018 (Act No. 25, 2018), Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018 (Act No. 26, 2018), Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Act 2018 (Act No. 27, 2018)., Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Act 2018 (Act No. 28, 2018), Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Act No. 29, 2018), Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2018 (Act No. 30, 2018) 68 Assent 68 Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017 68

Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017

Report from Committee 68 18:10 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 Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017 68

Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017

Report from Committee 68 18:10 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018 68

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 68 18:10 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I present the committee's report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018 and two related bills, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018 68

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018

Second Reading 68 18:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak to the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018. My colleague Senator Siewert has already spoken to the elements of this bill, which relate to the changes to child support. My comments this evening are made on behalf of Senator Richard Di Natale, who is currently in budget lock-up, and they relate to the No Jab, No Pay provisions within schedule 2 of this bill. Currently, under the No Jab, No pay policy, which has been in place since 2016, families with children who fail to meet the full year immunisation requirements lose all or part of the family tax benefit A supplement at the end of the financial year. This bill amends the No Jab, No Pay policy, so that, rather than penalising families at the end of each year, the government will instead impose an approximate $28 reduction in FTB payments each fortnight from families with a child who do not meet these requirements. The measure is apparently designed to give families a most constant reminder to vaccinate their children and is billed by the government as a $22.8 million saving over the forward estimates, which is further to the $508.3 million in savings over five years from the initial No Jab, No Pay policy. Vaccination, of course, is of vital importance to the health of the Australian people. Senator Di Natale, as colleagues would know, is a former doctor and public health professional. As he's said many times, he finds it hard to overstate the importance of vaccines to public health. Immunisation has been a revolution in health care. As many as half a billion people died from smallpox in the 20th century; yet this century the death toll from smallpox is zero. That is because the program of vaccination completely eradicated smallpox by 1979. Australia, in particular, is a vaccination success story. The first vaccine was used here as far back as 1804 and since then more and more vaccines have become routinely used. Tetanus, diphtheria and polio were early successes. We've had a measles vaccine since 1969 and a mumps vaccine since 1981. All of these potentially life threatening conditions are now rare in this country. Children born in Australia today are protected from many more diseases, from chickenpox to human papillomavirus, thanks to safe and affordable vaccines. Over time, there's been some complacency creeping in, as well as some really problematic misinformation circulated to undermine the rates of vaccine. It's absolutely critical that vaccination rates remain high, because part of the effectiveness of vaccination is in ensuring that enough of the population is immunised to protect those who can't be. We do, however, approach this measure with caution. There are growing questions from the public health fraternity about whether this is the most appropriate measure for raising immunisation across the population. There are complex reasons for failure to vaccinate, with most of them coming from a lack of knowledge or accurate information, about vaccinations. Only a very small proportion—Professor Julie Leask's research shows that they account for only 1.52 per cent—of children are not vaccinated due to a conscientious objection of the family. The bulk of those who aren't fully vaccinating their children either are unaware that they haven't been vaccinated or are open to discussion and education with health professionals about the benefits of vaccination to the individual and to society. Indeed, those who are the so-called conscientious objectors are highly unlikely to respond to coercion and may well see it as further supporting their unfounded theories relating to vaccination. As Professor Leask, doctors and public health groups have often cautioned, this measure only affects those families who rely on the payments for their family budgets, and penalising this group of already lower-income families due to a lack of education should be approached with caution. As we heard from the Public Health Association of Australia back in 2015 when we investigated the initial legislation, it's also critical to investigate and tackle the structural and practical barriers, including socioeconomic reasons, that exist and that explain why some children are not fully vaccinated. It's clear that vaccination rates will improve by reducing barriers to access, engaging with families and having further strategies that are specific, for example, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Clearly, vaccination is critical and we must do more to engage with those who continue to fail to vaccinate their children and encourage them to do so. What is also clear is that, as we move into this policy space with an element of coercion, the government must investigate the introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme for vaccination. While vaccinations are incredibly safe and, indeed, life-saving for the vast majority of the millions of people who have them, it is true there are rare cases of adverse events, some of which can be serious. A no-fault compensation scheme would provide the safety net to families for the very unlikely event that something goes wrong. This measure, which would be paid for through a small levy paid by the pharmaceutical companies, is already in place in several countries around the world, including New Zealand, the United States, Britain and most European countries. It is time that Australia joined them. The Greens will support the bill. We're committed to vaccination. We do note, however, that there are growing questions about whether this is the most appropriate approach to raising the rates of vaccination and that there are growing calls for a no-fault compensation scheme much like other countries around the world. In conclusion, I move the Australian Greens second reading amendment on sheet 8424, standing in Senator Di Natale's name: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the government to investigate the introduction of a no fault compensation scheme for the extremely rare occurrences of severe adverse events associated with vaccination." 18:18 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018 introduces new No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School measures along with a range of improvements to the Child Support Scheme. I thank senators who have contributed to the debate. This bill would ensure that from 1 July 2018 children must meet immunisation and health check requirements before their families can access the full entitlement to family tax benefit part A. The current No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School compliance measures will be abolished and replaced with a new measure linking immunisation and health check requirements to a family's fortnightly rate of family tax benefit part A. The new measure will serve as an immediate incentive and constant reminder for non-compliant parents by reducing their family tax benefit part A payment throughout the year rather than when their family assistance is reconciled at the end of the year. If a child does not meet their immunisation requirements after a 63-day grace period has passed, that child's fortnightly rate of family tax benefit part A will be reduced by an amount of around $28. The intent of the measure is not about cost savings. The measure replaces and builds on the existing Healthy Start for School Policy and the existing No Jab, No Pay policy, which has already achieved significant increases in child immunisation coverage rates across Australia. The new No Jab, No Pay measure is expected to achieve further increases in immunisation compliance. This bill also introduces a range of child support measures which demonstrate this government's clear commitment to making meaningful improvements to the Child Support Scheme. In the 2017-18 budget the government committed $12.4 million towards the implementation of three priority recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into the Child Support Program. This bill introduces changes which were identified as key areas in which current policies can lead to outcomes that are inconsistent with the objectives of the Child Support Scheme or which require parents to go through onerous processes to arrive at the correct outcome. Child support and family assistance legislation will be amended to provide better outcomes for parents in dispute about their child's care arrangements. These changes will help to ensure correct outcomes and improve the administration in around 90,000 to 100,000 child support cases each year. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 8426 moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to. Question negatived. 18:22 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—In view of the fact that there are a number of people in budget lock-up, I wasn't going to call a division, but I would like it to be clearly recorded those who voted no and those who voted yes. In other words, that the government and the opposition opposed the second reading amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 With the concurrence of the Senate, that will be recorded in the Hansard, Senator Siewert. The list was unavailable at the time of publishing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 8424 moved by Senator McKim be agreed to. Question negatived. 18:23 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—The same applies here. I won't cause chaos by calling a division during the budget lock-up, but I would like the same recorded—that the government and the opposition opposed that second reading amendment. Thank you. The list was unavailable at the time of publishing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 With the concurrence of the Senate, those votes will be recorded in the Hansard. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 70 18:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8425: ( 1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit "Parts 1 and 2", substitute "Part 1". The opposition also opposes schedule 1 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 35 (line 1) to page 39 (line 12), TO BE OPPOSED. As I outlined in my second reading debate remarks, Labor and I understand the Greens also have concerns with the impacts of schedule 1 part 2 in this bill in relation to retrospective payments. We know that there are delicate issues to be weighed up here, in terms of who owes money to whom, but our priority is to ensure that parents, and indeed their children more specifically, aren't worse off in circumstances where accidental errors have been made in tax assessments. We believe further consideration of these issues should be given before the Senate deals with these specific matters in this legislation, which is why we are seeking this carve-out. Should the government object or we're not successful in having this carve-out then we've got specific amendments that we would move, but that is not our preferred way of dealing with these issues. We're proposing to remove part 2 of schedule 1 from the bill in order to give the Senate further time to consider these important issues. We've distributed both sets of amendments to the chamber. 18:27 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Senator Pratt is right: as I articulated in my contribution in this morning's second reading debate, the Greens likewise have significant concerns around part 2. We have concerns around quite a bit of the legislation as it applies to child support, but in this instance we're particularly concerned to make sure that the payees—the majority of payees are, as I articulated this morning, single mothers—are not adversely affected. We want to see more safeguards put around part 2 in particular to protect people who will be potentially adversely affected by these broader amendments. We think the best way to do it is to in fact take this particular part out. As I also indicated earlier, we understand into the future there will be more amendments coming to this legislation. The government has the opportunity to either deal with it in that piece of legislation or in fact do it separately, but we think we need time to adequately consider amendments that can have significant ramifications—particularly for the payees who are struggling on low incomes and who could become significantly financially vulnerable if a mistake is made here or if we don't get this right. We support the broader approach of taking out part 2, but if that is unsuccessful we will then obviously enter into the discussion around the amendments that would subsequently be moved. However, given the nature of the time it has taken—these amendments have had to be developed very quickly—we would prefer taking part 2 out so that we can give the amendments serious consideration. 18:29 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I will respond with two points, if I can. Firstly, this measure will correct incorrect assessments faster. The debt already exists. It doesn't affect the debt, as I understand it. I am advised that it just means that the assessments can be corrected faster. Secondly, this measure is as a result of a bipartisan committee and its recommendations, specifically recommendation 12. The government believes that this brings fairness and equity to the system by simplifying administration. It has been three years since that committee reported, and the government sees no reason to delay implementation any longer. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 20 : 30 BUDGET 71 BUDGET Statement and Documents 71 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table the budget statement for 2018-19 and other documents: The Budget 2018-19—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Morrison), dated 8 May 2018 Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 2018-19. No. 2—Budget measures 2018-19. No. 3—Federal Financial Relations 2018-19. No. 4—Agency resourcing 2018-19. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the documents. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I move: That the Senate take note of the budget statement and documents. Debate adjourned. Proposed Expenditure 71 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table the following documents: Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments for the year ending on 30 June 2019; Particulars of proposed and certain additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 2019. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I move: That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates. Question agreed to. Portfolio Budget Statements 72 20:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table portfolio budget statements for 2018-19 and portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements for 2017-18 for portfolio and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. The list read as follows— The document was unavailable at the time of publishing. 20:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I table the portfolio budget statements for 2018-19 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are also available from the Senate Table Office. The list read as follows— The document was unavailable at the time of publishing. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Reproductive Health Services 72 20:31 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania On Saturday, 28 April, I joined hundreds of people on Hobart's Parliament House lawns to stand with women and call on the Hodgman Liberal government to step up and provide equal access to reproductive health for all women in Tasmania. One in three women will choose to have an abortion in their lives. It is not a decision that women take lightly. It is a decision taken by women from all walks of life and for multiple reasons. Access to termination laws in Tasmania were implemented in 2013 under the previous, Labor government. Labor's laws recognise that women are in the best position to make their own health decisions. Thanks to Labor, Tasmania has some of the best laws around reproductive health. Yet, because of the Liberals, Tasmania provides some of the worst access to these procedures and women are being forced in Tasmania to travel to Victoria to access surgical abortions. In January this year, the main provider of surgical terminations in Tasmania closed its doors, leaving women with scarce options to access this vital service, but, during the state election campaign held recently, Premier Will Hodgman and Minister Greg Hunt told us that they had fixed this issue. Now we are two months on from that state election and absolutely nothing has been done. Premier Will Hodgman has ruled out funding terminations in our public hospital, proving that the Liberals are driven by conservative ideology, not the healthcare needs of Tasmanian women. Hodgman's failure to lead is continuing to force women to fly interstate to access this surgical procedure. This is causing an emotional and a financial burden to those women that are affected. They should be able to access this service locally, where they can be near their families, their husbands and partners and their support networks. But instead they are being forced to travel to the mainland. The state's Patient Travel Assistance Scheme doesn't even cover the full costs of flights and accommodation, leaving women significantly out of pocket. Young women, women in rural areas in Tasmania and women on low incomes are most disadvantaged by this situation. That is why federal Labor committed, during the state election campaign, to providing $1 million to Tasmania to build a reproductive health hub for surgical terminations as part of Tasmania's public hospital system. But, in stark contrast, Prime Minister Turnbull has refused to intervene in the current crisis, claiming that Premier Will Hodgman is 'dealing with it'. Yet, even as he uttered these words, more and more women were travelling to Melbourne to access abortion services. Marie Stopes International says that since the start of this year the number of Tasmanian women flying to Melbourne every month to access surgical abortions has increased from one or two to 10. This is totally unacceptable. The Tasmanian health minister is preventing women's access to legal reproductive health services by creating barriers to accessing the procedure. It is a path that is clearly fuelled by his own ideological influences. For women who have endured this trip to Melbourne to have their stories erased by government statements is immensely frustrating and also incredibly disrespectful. It is overdue for Premier Will Hodgman and Minister Greg Hunt to sort this out. Stop letting Tasmanian women down. All Australian women should be able to access legal, safe and affordable abortion services, if they need to do so, and no government's bent ideology should stand in the way. Finally, I note that tonight is budget night, and there is nothing in this budget that has addressed this particular access to termination in Tasmania, despite Greg Hunt's rhetoric that this would be sorted. But, on top of that, there is nothing to address homelessness and there is nothing to address foreign aid. In fact, there are cuts to foreign aid beyond belief. There are cuts to pensioners' welfare. The government are increasing the pension age. They are getting rid of the energy supplement. All of this budget is bad for Australia and bad for Tasmania. Australian National Veteran Arts Museum 73 20:36 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I want to take this brief opportunity to draw the Senate's attention to a great institution in my home town of Melbourne—an institution which far too few people know about. I'm talking about the Australian National Veteran Arts Museum. I had the opportunity on 24 April to visit the Veteran Arts Museum's most recent exhibition, called March to Art: communitythrough a veteran's eyes, which was presented in the Collins Place Gallery in the heart of Melbourne. I was welcomed by Tanja Johnston, the head of the museum's arts program, who has done so much to bring this exhibition to fruition. I also had the pleasure to meet Sean Burton, the museum's artist-in-residence. I was impressed by the power and depth of the artworks on display. All of it was the work of veterans, and all of it was expressing their emotions and experiences arising from their deployment in the service of Australia. Several of these artists, such as Geoffrey Jones and Michael Williams, are veterans of the Afghanistan conflict. I have just been to Afghanistan on the ADF Parliamentary Program and seen something of the ADF's ongoing commitment to the future of that country. The artworks I saw gave me an extra insight into the experiences of our personnel in Afghanistan. The Veteran Arts Museum was established in 2013 and incorporated in April 2015. Its patron is retired Lieutenant General Ash Power, AO, CSC, a distinguished Australian Army veteran who was, at one time, Deputy Chief of Staff of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The chairman and director of the museum is Mark Johnston, and the curator of the exhibition was Bruce Copland. The museum was set up in response to the need for community based arts programs to support the wellbeing of former service members. It enables veterans to use the arts as a means of improving or maintaining their health and wellbeing. The museum works closely with veterans organisations and charities in delivering arts engagement and art therapy for veterans and their families. During my visit I was briefed about the museum's efforts to secure, from the federal government, the heritage listed but sadly neglected and unused Defence property at 310 St Kilda Road, the former Repatriation Commission Outpatient Clinic. This property is in the heart of Melbourne's arts precinct, opposite the Shrine of Remembrance. It's a very fitting location for such a museum and such an endeavour. I fully support the museum's efforts to secure this property as its permanent base. That was a policy which the Leader of the Opposition took to the last election. We heard at Senate estimates in February that negotiations about the future of this property were ongoing, and I will raise this matter again at estimates later this month. I also took the opportunity to write to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Darren Chester, in relation to some additional funding for the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum so that the Melbourne exhibition can be exhibited in Canberra, hopefully towards the end of this year. I'm very hopeful that the minister will be able to support such an endeavour. I want to read just a few of the comments on and responses to the exhibition from those who have attended. On 25 March this year one attendee said: Absolutely incredible exhibition that is so full of self-expression, passion and emotion. Such an honour to meet some of the beautifully talented artists that created this exhibition. Very much looking forward to seeing more exhibitions. Another said: Amazing! Thank you ANVAM! Such important work, so healing. Another attendee in March this year specifically mentioned the work of one of the artists, saying it: … would not look out of place in Hosier Lane being Instagrammed around the globe! Great work everyone both on & off the field. Love your work. Very honest and evocative. Thanks, and I hope to see more exhibitions. Other visitors commented: Very sad but very powerful stories that have to be told— Incredible heartfelt stories & works depicting the emotion of all life throws at you. Great to see the power of art in the lives of veterans—and, as a viewer, to enter their lives too. I would commend this exhibition, especially if it does come to Canberra. It would be in the vicinity of parliament, so it would be a good thing, I think, for all parliamentarians to see. Murray-Darling Basin 74 20:42 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise tonight to voice my support for the agreement, reached over the last few days between Labor and the coalition, on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I'm very pleased to say that Labor support puts the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track and further increases the level of transparency and compliance. Labor put the plan in place to deliver a healthy basin and healthy rivers. There are no jobs on a dead river, and it's important that the plan is implemented in full. This issue has become particularly important to me this year. On 16 March I visited St George, in my duty electorate of Maranoa, to hear firsthand from the affected communities. I'd like to take a moment to thank the people who facilitated my visit to the area: the deputy mayor, Councillor Fiona Gaske, local councillor Sam O'Toole and Jane Hill from Cotton Australia. They were excellent tour guides on my visit. We took the opportunity to go to the McIntyre cotton farm, the Moon Rocks onion and garlic farm and to Jack Taylor Weir. Back at the council chambers we had the opportunity to meet with local residents, producers, business owners and service providers from the communities of St George and Dirranbandi, and I heard directly from locals about how vitally important the outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are in these communities. I heard that people in these communities clearly understand the need for environmental outcomes to maintain the health of the river system. At the same time, I heard the emotional stories about the constant struggle in these communities for people to survive and to adapt to using less water. I also took on board a number of the constructive suggestions from the farmers about how the river water flows can be better managed to achieve outcomes for production and for the environment. I heard loud and clear the willingness of the people in these communities to work with all levels of government to find environmental solutions while preserving local jobs and the overall health of their communities—economically, mentally and environmentally. My meetings in St George followed earlier representations by the Balonne shire mayor, Councillor Richard Marsh; Balonne shire's deputy mayor, Councillor Gaske; and Joshua O'Keefe from the Local Government Association of Queensland to me and my fellow Queensland Labor senators, Anthony Chisholm, Claire Moore and Murray Watt. I'd also like to thank Michael Murray, the general manager of operations from Cotton Australia, for his representations to me on this issue in Canberra. These conversations took place in the lead-up to the disallowance motion on the instrument in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in February this year. The disallowance motion concerned amendments to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that followed the Northern Basin review. At the time, Labor made the difficult decision to support the disallowance motion while we sought assurance from the government around compliance and transparency in the face of disturbing allegations of water theft. We couldn't stand by and see the environment suffer because of the illegal take of environmental water. Following my visit to St George, I sought a meeting with Labor's shadow minister for environment and water, Tony Burke. I thank Mr Burke for taking the time to meet with me about this important matter, and I recognise his enduring commitment to the plan that he originally signed into law in November 2012. During our meeting, I passed on the feedback that was given to me and expressed my strong support for Labor to help provide the certainty that the communities along the northern rivers were asking for. I want to congratulate Mr Burke and Minister Littleproud on their productive negotiations to reach agreement at 450 gigalitres while preserving the independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Throughout the course of these negotiations, Labor put forward a clear position on a range of matters. The package of measures put forward by the government includes a more appropriate response to the allegations of water theft in the Northern Basin, including protection of environmental water through daily extraction limits and embargoes on irrigators pumping during environmental water releases, metering and 'no meter, no pump' rules, and a new Northern Basin commissioner. I welcome the appointment of the independent Northern Basin commissioner to make sure water for the environment gets to where it's required as well as make sure transparency and compliance measures happen. I'm committed to a healthy basin and delivering the environmental outcomes in the basin plan; I'm committed to listening to all sides of the debate. (Time expired) Indigenous Employment 74 20:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise tonight to talk about the future of employment and services in Aboriginal communities, and to highlight the need for a different approach in remote, rural and regional communities. There is an urgent need for meaningful jobs in rural and remote Aboriginal communities; there is also a growing need for more people to work in carer occupations in particular as the NDIS rolls out and as the population ages, and to ensure that we have adequate services in remote communities in particular. Rather than increasingly punitive approaches to income support, there could be a transition to meaningful work creating not only more jobs in communities desperate for them but also enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to remain on country and receive the services they require. I've spoken on numerous occasions in this place on my concerns about CDP—the Community Development Program. About 80 per cent of CDP participants are Aboriginal people living in regions where unemployment can be as high as 51 per cent. The CDP requires them to work 25 hours per week for below the minimum wage and under different circumstances to the rest of Australia in jobactive programs. The latest figures on the number of penalties applied to Aboriginal people on this program highlight the failures of the program and the urgent need for change. There are more than 340,000 fines that have been issued since 2015 to people enrolled in CDP, according to the latest data from the federal government. Roughly 30,000 people are registered with the program, and there were 47,729 fines issued to that group of people in the three months to September 2017. When you look at the jobactive program—which includes 760,000 people living in major cities and regional areas—54,758 fines were issued for the same quarter. Now, you can see the vast difference in the proportion of people fined under CDP compared to the rest of Australia. Analysis by The Australia Institute showed that the scheme had helped fewer than one in five people into an ongoing job and that fewer than one in 10 remained in that job for six months or more. Statistics from estimates show that between June 2015 and September 2017 the number of young people accessing the CDP dropped dramatically, showing that young people increasingly are not accessing the program, despite needing support. The number of people with vulnerability indicators also dropped during this period, which serves as a concerning indicator that vulnerable Australians increasingly are not accessing the program, despite needing help. These trends will probably be viewed by the government as a badge of success. They've kept people off income support. They are not in jobs, just not on any visible means of support. This is evidence that points to the fact that vulnerable Australians are increasingly shying away from a program that is difficult to navigate when trying to access support in remote Australia. Between June 2015 and September 2017 the number of participants aged under 25 dropped by nearly 2,500. This is very concerning, because members of this cohort are at the start of their working lives. The data doesn't indicate that employment is driving the shift, so this more than likely means that young people aren't getting support at a critical juncture in their lives and highlights yet again that the program is fundamentally broken. At Garma at the beginning of August last year, and in fact in recent Senate estimates, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, conceded that the program needed improving and mentioned, particularly, that the program should address issues around community wages, which is what the Aboriginal community has been calling for for a long time. Yet that issue was not taken up with urgent action. The minister has supposedly been consulting on this for some period of time. In the meantime, Aboriginal people are left on this harsh and paternalistic program which has appalling impacts, as I've just articulated. We know this program doesn't work, and these failures need to be addressed. The budget papers say that there is going to be reform of the CDP: The changes will better align job seekers' participation activities with their assessed work capacity and incentivise job seeker attendance and engagement. Under the new arrangements, CDP job seekers will be subject to the Jobseeker Compliance Framework introduced in the 2017-18 Budget measure titled Better Targeting of Assistance to Support Jobseekers— In other words, it's the demerits program. There is little other information provided at this stage. The papers go on to say that this will be implemented by 1 February 2019. This is an unacceptable wait for any level of reform, and I'm severely doubtful that this is the meaningful and proper reform the community has very clearly articulated is needed. APO NT, in the Northern Territory, have set out a plan which the government could follow to better develop this program, but we are yet to see the details of the reform other than, by the look of it, the application of even more stringent measures to this vulnerable group of jobseekers. In the meantime, before we see that reform, people will be stuck for eight months on this harsh, punitive approach which drops people off income support and which has caused distress in the community and has led literally to food not being put on tables. The Senate inquiry into the CDP made a number of recommendations, including—where I'm particularly focusing these comments—that the government needs to take immediate action on those onerous compliance measures which drop people off income support for long periods of time. Even if it's 'no show, no pay', people are losing multiple days. It's having a significant effect on people's ability to survive. The failure of this program has had devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities, with kids not getting food on the table, and communities being pushed further into poverty and disadvantage. It's clear that this type of program is not working. And if the only reform that is going to occur is to put people onto the demerit points system then that is not going to deliver the outcomes. We know that there's plenty of opportunity, for example, to invest in and develop a caring economy in these communities to provide essential community services to support ageing, disabilities, family and community, and mental health. We know these are vital to regional and remote communities. In its submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers inquiry, the WA Council of Social Services discussed the need to invest in our human services. The council said we should be investing in our human services in response to the projected demand to drive growth in our economy and that will simultaneously tackle greater inequalities and meet the needs of an ageing population. We also need to continue the growth of our skilled Aboriginal human services workforce in order to provide employment opportunities and informed services that can best address the disadvantage experienced by the Aboriginal community. It is predicted that, by 2020, demand for health and social services will triple; however, we still don't have a workforce development strategy in place to meet this demand. Developing and sustaining an appropriately skilled community services workforce to meet the projected demand is becoming increasingly challenging. We need to significantly invest in and develop a strategy around how we are going to provide human services in remote communities. It's an ideal opportunity to invest in developing the skills of Aboriginal workers so the services are owned and delivered by Aboriginal communities themselves and generate jobs that are needed in these communities. We need to invest in that sort of approach, not in a punitive top-down approach that hurts Aboriginal people living in remote communities. Tennant Creek 76 20:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to talk about the community of Tennant Creek, a fantastic town in the Northern Territory that's certainly doing its best as a community to deal with and move forward from some pretty tough and tragic incidents recently. I spent the days leading up to Anzac Day in Tennant Creek and what struck me was how the town's services and organisations are certainly making a very concerted effort to work together to create a better future for the town and its residents. A cultural authority group has been established to ensure all high-level visitors to Tennant Creek, particularly political visitors, speak to the correct people. The group also works on issues such as community safety and keeping children safe. The cultural authority group is currently unfunded and I understand the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is looking at funding to get them some administrative support, so I very much urge this to happen as a matter of priority. This sort of local decision-making and authority needs to be encouraged and supported, and it was terrific to have the opportunity to get around so many of the strong and resilient service providers in Tennant Creek. It's 30 years next year since the Tennant Creek women's refuge opened. I was able to celebrate the 20th anniversary with them and I'm looking forward to returning next year to mark their 30th year of providing a safe refuge and just for being there for those who need support, especially our women and children in the Tennant Creek and Barkly region. In another related anniversary, it's also 10 years next year since the Northern Territory Labor government introduced mandatory reporting of domestic violence and we were the first jurisdiction to do so. This was a significant achievement and one I'm immensely proud of as I was the Territory minister for families and children at the time the mandatory reporting legislation was introduced. The next step is financial empowerment of women so as to move out of entrenched poverty and violent relationships, an absolutely critical step in assisting our women across the Northern Territory. I'd like to thank the CEO of the refuge, Mary Ryan, and the dedicated staff, Christine Gullifer, Denise Ricky, Ronnie Staunton and Shirleen Alum. As well as providing a safe place, the refuge also operates some innovative programs in partnership with Barkly Regional Arts. The refuge launched the Which Way? Right Way project last month, a series of commercials made in Tennant Creek and aimed at the local community to combat domestic violence. The community driven and created project includes a song as well as the videos, and I certainly recommend to those here in the Senate to look at the Barkly Regional Arts YouTube channel. It is well worth having a look at it. Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation is the town's Indigenous controlled primary health service. It was a pleasure to catch up with CEO, Barb Shaw, the chair of the area and also the board and dedicated staff. The staff there, and the organisation, support other main local Indigenous community controlled organisations, such as Julalikari and Papulu Apparr-Kari Aboriginal Corporation. They have been at the forefront of the push for strong alcohol restrictions to be implemented in Tennant Creek. The trial restrictions in place see takeaway liquor only available for sale Monday through to Saturday between the hours of 3.00 pm and 6.00 pm. Takeaway liquor sales on Sunday are prohibited and there are also limits on the volume of alcohol a person can purchase each day. Naturally, this trial has mixed results and responses from the different people that you speak to. But in terms of the overall feel of the town and the opportunity for people there to have a bit of a breather, to reflect on how things are going and to make decisions best for the future for all individuals and families who live there, this is an important and critical time for the community of Tennant Creek. Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation is a strong supporter of the alcohol restrictions, and it's on track under the guidance of a strong board and new management. Papulu Apparr-Kari, under the guidance of the CEO, Karan Hayward, and the board are settling into a new purpose-built home and are continuing their important work preserving local languages in the Barkly and Gulf region, including languages such as Warlpiri, Warumungu, Yanyuwa, Garrawa and Gudanji. The mayor of Tennant Creek, Steve Edgington, was away on holidays when I was in Tennant Creek but I would certainly like to thank the councillors Jeff McLaughlin, Kris Civitarese, Ronald Plummer and Sid Vashist for their time and advice, and also the staff at the council for briefing me and filling me in on just how things are going in the region. I'd also like to thank the staff at Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group for taking the time to inform me about their service. Also, thank you to the staff at the Tennant Creek Hospital. Thank you very much for your time in showing me around. I listened to how things are going in terms of the alcohol restrictions in the town. And I'd like to make special mention of the Tennant Creek RSL. It was wonderful to be able to spend time with them, their members and the community of Tennant Creek for the important dawn service, and also the service again at 11.00 am. It was an incredible privilege to be asked to receive the general salute as the Anzac parade marched through Tennant Creek. That was a beautiful moment for me, and one that I will certainly take as one of my highlights working in political office. It was lovely to be able to spend the couple of days that I did with all the people of Tennant Creek. 1968 77 21:03 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I rise this evening to pay tribute to the rebels of 1968 on this, the 50th anniversary of that remarkable year. 1968 was one of those years when millions of people were involved in trying to change the world for the better. The world was shaken by a wave of protests and rebellions again imperialism, racism, social injustice and the lack of real democracy. It began with the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Despite the presence of more than half a million US troops and the unprecedented bombing of that small, poor country, the fighters of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam stormed into towns and cities across Vietnam to show that they were not beaten. They even captured and briefly occupied the heavily fortified US embassy in Saigon. This story of the heroism and endurance of the small nation of Vietnam taking on the might of the US super power came to define our generation. I was at high school in 1968. I remember the excitement and how the hopes of the time inspired a worldwide movement of solidarity for liberation and justice. The events surrounding the Tet offensive ushered in a year of widespread democratic engagement and what has been called the beginning of the revolution in everyday life. From 1968 onwards, we would hear that slogan which has never gone away: 'The personal is political'. My favourite image of that year was the two black athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, standing on the podium at the Mexico Olympics after they came first and third in the 200-metre sprint, holding their black-gloved fists aloft in the black power salute and standing with them wearing a civil rights badge in solidarity was the Australian athlete Peter Norman, who had run second. It was one of the most shameful facts of our contemporary history that Peter Norman was treated so shabbily by our sporting and government officials in the years and decades afterwards. It was so heartening, however, to hear the apology to his memory delivered recently by John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Committee. Nevertheless, the struggle of Afro-Americans for social and economic equality, or even for basic human safety, continues to do this day with the Black Lives Matter movement. The other images that stay strong in my memory and that have become symbols of the social movement of 1968 are those of the students and young people battling the police on the streets of Paris. In the first week of May 1968, students in Paris clashed with police practically every day, with hundreds arrested or wounded and hospitalised by tear gas grenades or the batons of the police. On the Friday night of 10 May, the famous 'night of the barricades', barricades were thrown up around the Sorbonne, the centre of the University of Paris. In the early hours of the morning, the students defended themselves against wave after wave of police attacks. France and the world awoke to reports of police violence that shocked even the French, long used to police brutality. France's three-union federation decided on a one-day general strike to protest the government's use of the police to attack the students. The strike, incidentally, was strictly illegal. On Monday, 13 May, work came to a halt, and in every town and city throughout France there were huge rallies. More than a million people marched through Paris. All this, the heroism of the students and the huge marches, would have been worth recalling, but what happened next made this month truly historic. Inspired by the students, young workers throughout France initiated strikes and workplace occupations. All kinds of workers were involved—blue- and white-collar workers, women as well as men, unskilled as well as technicians. By the next week, France was paralysed by an indefinite general strike of some eight million workers. Half the work places of France were occupied by their workers. All the universities were occupied and approximately 400 high schools. It was an unprecedented revolt against the status quo. After some hesitation, union leaders moved to take control and eventually begin negotiations with the government. Observers and historians agree on a number of key aspirations that emerged during the month-long strike. It was definitely about social equality. The major British poet Stephen Spender, who was in Paris at the time, confirms everyone called each other 'comrade'. Social divisions and stratifications began to dissolve as people took to the streets and began to talk to each other like never before. Initially, striking workers did not make demands about pay. They talked about more respect at work and even 'autogestion', workers' management of their workplaces. Students were predominantly from middle-class backgrounds but they made every attempt to link up with workers during May and June. It was one of the tragedies of that time that the union leaders and the French Communist Party acted to keep them apart. This was a mistake and was later acknowledged as such by communist and union leaders. Another aspect of this demand for equality was the steps towards the foundation of women's liberation. The first meeting was called in May by two students at the Sorbonne. The other notable aspiration evident at the time was for participatory democracy. In fact, students and staff at universities and schools drew up plans for staff-student management of their institutions. In some workplaces, similar plans were drawn up by the workers. One of the failures of the time was that nowhere were these plans implemented. If they had been, a new social order may have begun to emerge. Finally, it was about social criticism, creativity and utopian dreams. The emptiness of a consumerist lifestyle was rejected. Restrictions on personal freedom were overturned. People not only talked of revolution and radical change but insisted that they live principled lives in the here and now. Playful, utopian graffiti and pungent, witty posters blossomed on the walls of cities and towns. The month of May became famous for its slogans. Here are some of the better ones: 'Imagination to power', 'Under the cobblestones, the beach', 'It's forbidden to forbid', 'Hurry up, the old world is behind you', 'Poetry is in the street' and 'The barricade closes the street but opens the way'. It was an impressive show of the internationalism and anti-racism that motivated the young of that era. How refreshing when contrasted to the resurgence of racism and anti-immigrant feeling in France and Europe today. Sadly, the revolt of May-June failed in the end. The parties of the Left were disunited and offered no practical support for the radical demands of the young. No model of an alternative society emerged. There was a situation of stasis. This allowed the government to recover its nerve, rally the army and the right wing and take back control. Huge wage rises were conceded to the workers, who the unions persuaded to return to work. Street demonstrations were banned, censorship tightened and hundreds went to jail. The ruling Gaullists decisively won elections at the end of June. However, it should be noted that the voting age then was just 21, which meant millions of young people could not vote. Today, once again, the youth and workers of so many countries are taking up these issues of social equality, participatory democracy, internationalism and the emptiness and destructiveness of consumer capitalism. There is no better way to celebrate 1968 than to actively pursue those issues. The great weakness of 1968 in France and elsewhere was that there was no significant political party that would champion what the students and young workers were striving for. I joined the Greens in 1990 with the hope that the Greens would become such a party that would help unite the great progressive struggles of our time. Having grown up with the memories of 1968 and the great social movements such as women's liberation, campaigns against the nuclear industry and for the environment, the end of apartheid and the Vietnam War, I came to understand the need for a political party that could play a leading and uniting role. I still have that hope that the green parties around the world, and even some traditional social democrat parties, will fill that gap and provide the support that our reviving social movements require to bring about a world of equality, genuine democracy, peace and ecological harmony. Nakba: 70th Anniversary, Middle East 78 21:12 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Tonight I'm wearing around my neck a pendant of Handala. Handala is a beloved Palestinian cartoon character, a refugee child, a creation of cartoonist Naji al-Ali. Naji al-Ali was 10 years old when Palestine was invaded by Israeli forces on 15 May 1948. He and his family were expelled from Palestine and ended up in a refugee camp in Lebanon. It was the beginning of the Nakba, the catastrophe. I bought this pendant for a few shekels in a village in the Jordan Valley just over a year ago whilst on a visit to Palestine and Israel organised by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. This May, Handala is staying around my neck in solidarity with Palestinians to remind myself and others of the Nakba—to stand up and be counted. On my trip a year ago, I observed, I learnt and I was changed. I wept with a widow whose husband had been killed only three months prior as the village of Umm al-Hiran was protesting about the demolition of houses in the village by Israeli government forces. Almost any building, home, school, childcare centre and even solar panels that have been built in Palestine since 1967 are subject to demolition. I met mothers holding vigil outside courtrooms where their teenage sons were being tried, convicted and jailed for the crime of posting on Facebook about the Israeli military forces that control their movements and their lives. And I walked the ghostly streets of Hebron, where Palestinians are no longer permitted to walk or work and are excluded by checkpoints and barbed wire, where Israeli settlers, illegal under international law, are slowly but surely taking over. But enough of what I witnessed. I don't have to live it every day. I got to come home to Australia and to distance myself from the oppression and the injustice. A year on since my visit, what's changed for Palestinians? The villagers of Umm al-Hiran have given up. They don't want anyone else to be killed. They have agreed to give up their ancestral farming lands and be relocated to apartments in a village some kilometres away and will mourn the razing of their homes, which will be replaced by a new village where only people of the Jewish faith will be permitted to live. A year on, 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi is serving eight months in an Israeli jail for slapping and kicking an Israeli soldier, having just learnt that Israeli troops seriously wounded her 15-year-old cousin, shooting him in the head from close range with a rubber bullet during nearby stone-throwing clashes. A year on, peaceful protests on Gaza's border with Israel have been met by live fire by Israeli forces. Fifty-one Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the past six weeks. No Israeli soldiers have been killed or injured. Israel continues to control the borders, imports and exports, water supply, electricity supply, people's movements, the army and the courts. Israeli settlements, illegal under international law, are expanding on Palestinian land. Roads which Palestinians are banned from travelling on connect their settlements with each other and to Israel. And Palestinians in the West Bank—suffering, resilient, steadfast under this military occupation of the last 50 years—don't have a vote in Israel. They don't have democratic rights or any way to influence how their lives are controlled in this way. As for Gaza, a quote from the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem summarises the situation: The Gaza Strip is the scene of a humanitarian disaster that has nothing to do with natural causes – it is entirely human-made, a direct result of official Israeli policy. … this cruel, unjustifiable policy, which sentences the nearly two million people living in Gaza to a life of abject poverty and nearly inhuman conditions. That's the reality of life in Palestine. That's the reality of the Nakba. How do Palestinians in Australia experience the Nakba? I want to share with you what Nakba means to two Australian Palestinians—firstly, playwright and poet Samah Sabawi, as reported in New Matilda. She writes: Nakba is not an isolated incident in history. Not a single memory that stands distant and frozen on the pages of time. Its commemoration is a reminder of the beginning of an ongoing crime. It forces us to reflect on a relentless inescapable reality … We are Palestinians and we cannot forget what has not yet ceased to be … … Palestine was erased from the map, but no map is set in stone. Maps have no heart and soul. Maps don't reflect the sanctity and beauty of life. So let them keep their map, and let us look erasure in the eye … Demolish our homes, steal our land, detain our children…oh … but if only they can leave our children alone. Here, in the native place of our existence, on the soil of our ancestors, we will survive and we will transcend their brutality with infinite persistence. With beauty and resistance. …   …   … We will "cultivate hope" in seeds we plant in places of uprooted trees, in the prose and verses of our poetry, in homes we build from the rubble after their demolitions, in songs of love and passion, in strokes of oil on canvas and in prayers in mosques and churches. And there, within the suffocating spaces between their towers, walls and checkpoints, we will teach our children how to dance to the rhythm of life. In the words of Bassam Dally, an Australian Palestinian advocate, professor at the Centre for Energy Technology at the University of Adelaide and a former Palestinian citizen of Israel: As a child you hear about the relatives in refugee camps … and you hear the heroic stories of survival against all odds. You hear about the families, living in the periphery of your village, who sought refuge from other villages that were destroyed by Jewish terrorist groups in 1948 … You drive by these villages and you notice that they have new Jewish names and the Arabic names have disappeared. And you realise that your Nakba has never stopped. The erosion of your heritage, your history and even your ruins is ongoing, making you feel like a foreigner in your own home, disconnecting you from your roots. These reflections place us so eloquently where we need to be when considering how to react to 70 years of oppression, injustice and the illegal actions of the Israeli government in Palestine. Sadly, the Israeli government isn't listening to voices like these. In contrast, their current actions are increasing the oppression and the injustice. So, on the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Nakba, what can we do? What should Australia and Australians be doing? Palestinians are relying on us, people outside Palestine, to act to end this destructive, inhumane state of affairs. If we want to end the violence and end the cycles of attack and retaliation then we have to give Palestinians real hope that the world understands their struggle and will support them in their just cause. We must not accept the Israeli government's perspective on this oppression. We must speak out and support Palestinian voices like those of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network and support the voices of the Israeli human rights activists such as B'Tselem and Jewish voices like the New Israel Fund Australia Foundation and the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. Australia is in a very powerful position with regard to Israel. We and the US are Israel's very best friends in the world. It would be massively powerful if we recognised the state of Palestine, joining 137 other states in doing so; if we said to Israel that we will not sell or buy arms from them while they continue the illegal military occupation and the expanding settlements; if we called on them to stop using lethal force against unarmed protesters in Gaza; in short, if we let Israel know, in the way that only best friends can, that their behaviour is unacceptable and we aren't going to turn a blind eye to it or to stay quiet about it anymore. I'm wearing my Handala pendant all month to provoke conversations and to remind me to speak out at every opportunity about the ongoing injustice in Palestine. I invite all members of this parliament and all Australians to do the same. Edwards, Mr Fred 80 21:22 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to speak tonight about a great Queenslander who died quite a few months a go. I wanted to take the chance to put on the record here in this chamber his great contribution. I speak of an Aboriginal man, Fred Edwards, who I had the great honour to meet around 12 or so years ago in Normanton in Far North Queensland. He was a man who played a central role in enabling public awareness about the appalling injustice that we still know today as the case of the Aboriginal stolen wages not just in Queensland but in many parts of the world. He, as with literally thousands of other Aboriginal people in Queensland and in other states, was somebody that worked for many years, as it turned out, literally without pay, at the time told his wages were being held in trust—a very ironic term in hindsight—for him and for all other Aboriginal people, to be provided for them down the track under the incredibly offensive idea that Aboriginal people couldn't possibly manage their own affairs or their own income. Even the amounts that they did get paid were far lower than other people at the time because until the 1970s it was legal to pay Aboriginal people less than other people purely on the basis of their race. But, even under the totally unjust lower wages that Aboriginal people were entitled to, they still, in many cases, did not get those wages. When, many years later, Aboriginal people tried to access the money that was supposedly held in trust for them, they were told that it actually wasn't there. They were told by the other entities or individuals who were supposedly looking after the money on their behalf that the money had disappeared. Frankly, it is a scandal that I still, after all these years, find very, very hard to comprehend, even by the standards of a different era—that something so blatant could be allowed to happen. Even worse is that, when it was exposed, very little was done about it. This isn't something contentious. This is something that the Queensland government and other state governments have acknowledged on the record and made apologies for. They have said, 'Sorry about that,' but they haven't actually paid the money back. There were small amounts of so-called reparations under the Beattie government, originally with a maximum of $2,000 or $4,000, depending on certain circumstances, for some people who had been robbed of tens of thousands of dollars—even back then with the value of money at the time, let alone once corrected for inflation and let alone any issues with regard to damages or extra compensation. It is impossible for me, and I think for most other people, to believe that, if this circumstance had happened to any other Australians, they would not have been properly, genuinely, legally and fully compensated. For these Aboriginal people, even when it was made public and it was acknowledged, it's never happened. The current Palaszczuk Labor government have, somewhat to their credit, made some attempts to improve the situation a bit, but it still goes nowhere near paying genuine, proper recompense to people who had their money stolen of them. So many of them, like Fred, are now dead. The fact that they are now dead is no excuse under law for their descendants to not be compensated for that. If you think of the loss of what they could have done and what could have been provided to their spouse, to their children and to their communities if they had received their own money, it's enormous. All of the underinvestment and all of the lost opportunities of that income not being passed on to them and then into their local communities and economy is enormous. There is still no compensation for that. Fred was not the only person, but he was a key person when this was initially made public. That was, in a large part, because of the work of Dr Ros Kidd in doing what I think was her PhD thesis examining this and what she discovered. Like on many issues, you can have an academic writing a thesis about something but the issue is how you bring it into the public domain—having a face for that campaign. Fred gave his face to that campaign. He allowed his face to be used as a living example of a person who had their wages stolen from them for decades and was still living and wanting that justice. I think we, hopefully, could all recognise that was a major step. It was a big act of courage for him to put his face out there and to be the face of a campaign against such injustice and to face all the consequences that can come from being such a target. I want to put on the record here a few comments provided from various people who were at Fred's funeral some months back, including me, acknowledging his dignity and bravery in being willing to put his face and his personal experiences into the public arena because of his desire to see justice not for himself but for thousands of other Aboriginal people who had their wages stolen from them and their fundamental rights ignored. His quiet but strong determination to have his and his fellow workers' rights recognised has never left me, which is why I feel compelled to put it on the record here tonight. I continue to be honoured to promote in the Senate here his message and that of his fellow workers. I apologise that we in this federal parliament, the people in the state parliament and the campaigners were not able to get a more just outcome for him and for the many others who suffered the same injustice but we will continue to do what we can to make sure his name, story and courage live on. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did have an inquiry into the stolen wages issue in around 2007. Again, that clearly highlighted the issue and put on to the record the undeniable facts of this. The New South Wales government's response was better than Queensland's but still not adequate. Other states dissembled continually. There has never been proper action or proper recognition of what was a basic case of industrial workplace theft. We hear today about wage theft. This was the most blatant in our history and it has not been redressed. I use some other words here from others, including Dr Ros Kidd herself, who spoke of Fred's courage in being a public face for the stolen wages campaign because he knew it was so important for white Australians to realise that the work of so many hundreds of Aboriginal men, women and children over so many decades was crucial to building the states' and the nation's wealth. In standing publicly in the fight to reclaim wages and savings lost, stolen by Queensland governments, Fred's courage and determination was and continues to be an example for all of us. Palm Island mayor, Alf Lacey, in giving credit to Fred for his involvement in the stolen wages campaign through all the adversity, said Fred always maintained his dignity. Fred came from the toughest era of our history and worked hard. His hat, somewhat similar to Senator Dodson's hat—always worn—was a reminder of those years that he carried with him. The former mayor of Mapoon Peter Guivarra spoke about that image of Fred, the photograph of his face he allowed to be used so much by those who worked on the stolen wages campaign. Lara Watson, the Indigenous officer from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, spoke about how Fred, knowing how to draw people in on the side of justice, was a fighter for wage justice and his passing was a big loss for the Aboriginal rights movement. Phil Glendenning, former national president of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation, spoke about Fred's courage—something all of us will never forget—and the impact of his actions going far beyond his own community to the whole nation and being central to the whole campaign. It went beyond just this nation, because the Australia Asia Worker Links organisation also noted his work and his efforts and acknowledged his contribution. Senate adjourned at 21:33 DOCUMENTS 81 DOCUMENTS Tabling 81 Tabling 88 Tabling 89