DOCUMENTS

2018-06-20 45 1 6 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 1 Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Death Penalty 1 09:31 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria Mr President, I want to draw your attention to a matter that occurred yesterday during formal motions which I believe may have invalidated a vote. I seek your guidance. Senator Dean Smith introduced a formal motion, No. 831. The Deputy President was in the chair and passed it on the ayes. It was disputed, and she then asked if a division was required. There were two dissenting voices, and, amid some confusion, the chair actually put the question again. The dissenting voices were those of Senator Anning and Senator Burston. During the division, Senator Burston left the chamber. Standing order 100(2) states: A senator calling for a division shall not leave the chamber until the division has taken place. Subsection (3) states: A senator shall vote in a division in accordance with that senator's vote by voice. That did not happen yesterday. Mr President, I hope you'll make a ruling as to the validity of that division, given that one of the voices calling for the division, that being the voice of Senator Burston, was not present during the division. I also hope that you will remind senators of the Senate rules governing divisions. 09:32 The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Hinch. This matter was brought to my attention this morning. You correctly point out the requirements of standing order 100, subclauses (2) and (3). With respect to the vote held yesterday, yes, senators should remain in the chamber and are required to when they call for a division, and their vote is required to reflect their voice when the question was put. However, upon taking advice, I believe the result of the division would not have been any different. It is not an invalid division, but you correctly give us the opportunity to remind all senators that, when they call for a division, they must remain in the chamber, and their vote must reflect their voice call when the matter was first put. To do otherwise is a breach of standing orders. But the division is not invalidated by that, given the result would have been no different. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Second Reading 1 09:33 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia When I left off my contribution last night, when the adjournment intervened, I was talking about how I would spend the $26 billion a year of tax cuts in the areas of my portfolio. I realise that other senators also have priorities for their portfolios, but I am focusing on my portfolios. I went through issues about Newstart, reparations for the stolen generations and making sure that we have adequate housing in remote communities. I'd also make sure that we were properly addressing redress for those affected by institutional sexual abuse and making sure the cap was $200,000, for example, instead of the $150,000 which was in the legislation that passed this place yesterday. I'd also make sure that we had adequate services in emergency departments for people suffering from a mental health crisis. I'd also make sure that grants for organisations delivering vital services in our communities were indexed so that community organisations weren't suffering a reduction every year in the funding and services they could provide. I'd make sure that Centrelink actually worked and that we had a functioning system where people actually answer the phone and calls are answered the first time people ring. We Greens would increase the minimum wage by 60 per cent. I reckon that's a much better way of spending the money this government is spending on these tax cuts. And, from the feedback that we have had, Australians would prefer that's the way the money was spent. They would prefer that we were delivering good, strong public services rather than funnelling this money to the big end of town. We need to address inequality in this country. We need a poverty plan, not a plan to make the wealthy even wealthier, which is what these tax cuts do. Most people won't benefit at all. The rich will get even richer. The fact is the majority of the benefits flow to the top 20 per cent of income earners. We have a plan to make the rich richer. We don't have a plan in this country to address poverty. Three million Australians are living in poverty and 3.6 million Australians do not have food security, according to the latest Foodbank report. We have people living in poverty, and the people that are most vulnerable are those trying to get by on the inadequate payment of Newstart and the youth allowance. We have people who are trying to survive below the poverty line, but the government's argument is: 'They're not really in poverty. The Anderson line and the poverty line are just an indication.' The research shows that there's a very good correlation between the poverty line and the expression of the poverty line as a measurement and the deprivation measures and deprivation structures. The research finds there's a good correlation between those in deprivation and where those poverty line measurements are. The government likes to play fancy with words to imply that those on Newstart are doing relatively okay, thank you very much, because those poverty lines not a very good indication. But we know they are a good reflection of those suffering from various measures of deprivation, such as how often they've eaten, what they can buy to send their children to school with and whether their children are missing out on going to school because they don't have the necessary resources and supports to be at school. Those measures of deprivation are reflected well in the poverty line. The government also says, 'Those living on Newstart get other benefits.' But we know that, for the vast majority of those receiving the Newstart allowance, the main additional payment is the energy supplement, which is a whole four bucks a week. Hurray! They could go out and buy a cup of coffee. And that's the very measure that the government wants to take away and still has on the books to take away. In terms of the so-called supplementary income for income support payment recipients, as I've just said, the only payment received by the majority of people is the energy supplement, and we all know the government plans to cut that. Thirty-eight per cent of people receiving Newstart do receive rent assistance because they pay private rent. The maximum rate for single adults without children is $67 a week. In what we know is an unaffordable rental market, that goes very little way to being able to pay rent. Anglicare does a study every year about access to housing. From their recent study, we know that three properties out of 67,000 nationally were affordable for a single person on Newstart receiving rent assistance. So it is just a joke that the government thinks that rent assistance goes anywhere near addressing the need for affordable housing or making sure people aren't living below the poverty line. The Salvation Army reported a couple of weeks ago that their latest study has found that, when you take out the cost of accommodation, those on Newstart have $17 a day to try and survive on. Again, I renew my challenge to those on the other side of the chamber to try living on Newstart, even for a week. A week gives you a taste of what it's like to try and survive on Newstart. Other additional payments, such as family tax benefit, are only received by 19 per cent of the people on Newstart—again blowing a massive hole in the government's argument that those living on Newstart really aren't living below the poverty line and there's no need to increase Newstart. The family tax benefit is actually to help parents raise their children. There is only one job available for every eight people looking for paid work. Two-thirds of people receiving Newstart are having to rely on the allowance for 12 months or more. When this payment originally came in, when we were calling it the dole and other previous names, it was about people being temporarily out of work for around six weeks, and people could survive on the payment for that length of time. That situation, of course, has changed. So many more people are having to rely on Newstart for much longer, work is not as readily available and there is much more active age discrimination against older workers trying to find work. And we all know the appalling statistics for young people who are unemployed. We used to talk about this affecting people in their early 20s. Now we're talking about those over 25 being unable to find permanent full-time work; they're more likely to be in temporary or part-time work. So our work situation is much more precarious than it used to be. People need to rely much more on income support. We also know living in poverty is a barrier to employment. We know that many people on Newstart have a number of vulnerabilities. Due to cuts from the Howard government, the Rudd-Gillard government and then the Abbott government, people with disability applying for the disability support pension have not been able to access it, and there's been an active push by this government, started by Mr Abbott and followed by Mr Turnbull, to try and kick more and more people off the disability support pension. Rather than enable them to remain on the disability support pension and improve their prospects of finding work, they are being actively assessed to kick them off the disability support pension. So they're living on the poorer payment of Newstart while they're trying to find work. This all adds up to a mess, where we have hundreds of thousands of Australians living below the poverty line while they are trying to survive on Newstart. Because of the way the government chose to index Newstart, it has not adequately kept pace with the true cost of living. It is not indexed the same as the age pension, so it has fallen further and further behind. The money that is being given away to the big end of town should be spent on those people that are living below the poverty line, that are trying to find work on Newstart, on youth allowance and on other payments. That's where we should be focusing that money. We should invest in the services that support Australians, as I articulated earlier. We have a commitment in this country to universal service. The Greens are deeply committed to universality to ensure that we have a health system and an education system, and a social security safety net that truly is a social security safety net. That's where we should be spending the money that the government is giving away to the big end of town. As I said, the majority of it's going to the top 20 per cent of income earners. That money is not addressing inequality in this country; in fact, it will be driving inequality. Instead of focusing on those on the very lowest incomes, the government's saying, 'Big end of town, work on the trickle-down effect.' We in Western Australia know very well, from when we had the mining boom, that that money does not trickle down to those on the lowest incomes. Let's remember a little bit of history. I was in this place when John Howard decided before the 2007 election that he would hand out money hand over fist for tax cuts. Let's have a quick look at where that ended up. Mr Rudd came in and continued with those tax cuts. Then we had the GFC, but those tax cuts were in place. That largesse was still in place. Instead of spending that money on services that would have better supported those who would be most affected by the GFC or by a downturn from good economic times to bad economic times, those tax cuts were allowed to flow through. Then we got to Mr Abbott, who came in and slashed the social security safety net—he absolutely slashed it—and came up with a brilliant idea: 'Oh! We'll force young people to wait six months before they can access Newstart or youth allowance.' Fortunately, this Senate stopped that ridiculous plan. It would not support that ridiculous plan. The government also took half a billion dollars out of funding for Aboriginal services. This can be related directly back to the fact that they gave away all that money in tax cuts. Now we're seeing a slight increase in revenue, and the government rushes to give it away. And what does the ALP do? It wants tax cuts that are 'bigger, better and fairer'. I don't know where the ALP came up with the term 'fair' in terms of tax cuts, when they are not supporting an increase to the most vulnerable people in our community, those who are struggling on Newstart, on youth allowance, on the age pension and on disability support pension. Those are the people that we need to be supporting not only through an increase in Newstart and an increase in youth allowance but by making sure that we are addressing and supporting the services that really will make a difference in people's lives. The 10 richest families in Australia own as much wealth as the poorest four million Australians combined. Three million of those poorest Australians are living below the poverty line. As I said, 3.6 million, part of those four million, are suffering from food insecurity, and yet what does this government want to do? It wants to hand over more money to the wealthiest in this nation, to those earning the highest incomes. We Greens say no, that is not good enough. We need to make sure that we are funding Australians who need the support, and we do that by making sure that we can fund Newstart and youth allowance, that we can fund those most in need. How about we have a redress scheme for those children who were in institutional care but suffered other forms of abuse, such as physical and mental abuse, who still have not received reparations and who will not be able to access the counselling services under the National Redress Scheme—limited though they are, because they're not lifelong services? How about a redress scheme for those survivors, for those care leavers? Many of them were brought to this country by our government, were subjected to abuse and have not received redress. How about spending some money on them? How about providing services that all the community wants? When you ask Australians if they want public services or tax cuts, they'll tell you they want public services. They want to make sure that they and their children can access a top-quality education system. They want to make sure that they can get health services when they need it. They want to be able to ring Centrelink and the Department of Human Services and get the information they want without having to keep dialling and dialling. They want a social security net for when they fall on hard times. I want to be able to look in the faces of people with disability and say that our country can provide them with the support and services they need, instead of demonising them and making them jump through all sorts of hoops, trying to find work for 18 months before they can access the disability support pension. That's not the country I want to live in. (Time expired) 09:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We've heard a lot from the government so far in this debate about their tax plan making things more fair; however, it's very clear to Australians, because they're fair-minded people, that there's nothing fair about the 2018 budget or about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. What most people think is fair in this nation is a greater sense of equity and equality. For example, when there are two people at a football match, and one can see over the fence and the other can't, it's not fair to keep them both standing on the ground; it's fair to give the short person a leg-up and put them on a box so they can see. That is the principle of progressive taxation. Fairness is about levelling the playing field for people. What we have in this budget is big business and the banks getting an $80 billion tax handout, which will be paid for with cuts to our schools and hospitals. In this bill the flattening of the progressive nature of our tax system would give high-income earners in our country a much higher benefit than lower income earners. Here we have it again for all to see: high-income earners and big business are the true priorities of the Turnbull government. Under the proposal the government has put forward, 62 per cent of the benefits would go to higher income earners while just seven per cent would go to the 30 per cent of Australians on the lowest wages. Why would you do that? Are you insane? Do you not care about the working poor in our nation? This bill continues to demonstrate how out of touch this government is with the reality of Australians' lives and in particular the people doing it toughest. This bill also demonstrates a government that is prepared to risk the budget bottom line—our capacity to pay down debt, to pay for services, to have a good Defence Force and to bail ourselves out of bad times—so it can hand out tax cuts to big business and top-income earners while doing very little for middle-income households. Whilst those opposite will argue that they're flattening the tax system, making it fairer, and that lower income households are getting a tax cut, it's a much smaller tax cut in dollar terms than the one for those who are already substantially much better off. In our current economic climate, we should have a government that's concerned about workforce participation, concerned about lack of wage growth and concerned about increasing the disposable income of targeted households as a way of boosting consumer spending. It's very clear that this government is not interested in that. What happens when you boost the incomes of higher income households? They invest more. They save more. These are worthy aspirations, but, when you put income into lower income households, they spend it and stimulate the economy, and everyone benefits. Investing more when you are on a higher income is all very well, except that people are accumulating wealth, in many instances, above and beyond that which ordinary Australians will ever be able to see or access in their own lives. Under the coalition, we see the cost of living set to increase. Workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries are losing up to $77 a week in penalty rates. We see families and pensioners paying around $20 a week or more, or about $1,000 a year, for private health insurance. We see parents paying more for child care—$40 a week, or $2,000 a year, more in fees. And we see record costs to visit a GP—on average, about $9 more every time you visit a doctor. These are the reasons why Labor is very prepared to support the government's proposed changes that are set to take effect on 1 July—those tax cuts that are targeted at people who need them. Labor will support tax cuts for 10 million people on 1 July, and we are ready to vote for those tax cuts today. If Labor is elected, we want to double these tax cuts and make them permanent, while asking those in the top tax bracket to pay a little more to help reduce debt. People in the top tax bracket, relative to people in the lower tax brackets, still have the resources to pay for their accommodation and pay for their retirement. Labor's bigger, better, fairer income tax will see those earning up to $125,000 a year better off when compared to Malcolm Turnbull's plan for the next four years. It is simply absurd to us in the Labor Party that someone on $200,000 a year should pay the same tax rate as someone on $40,000 a year. It is unfair and absurd. So we don't agree with the Turnbull government giving more tax cuts for the top bracket—and this is after the Turnbull government cut the tax rate for high-income earners just last year. The idea that a corporate executive or a politician on $200,000 a year should pay the same marginal tax rate as a worker earning close to the minimum wage, on a salary of about $41,000, strips away every shred of progressiveness in our taxation system. Yet, absurdly, this government is trying to pull the wool over Australians' eyes—and I don't think they will fall for it—to sell the idea that this is a tax cut for ordinary Australians. It's not a tax cut for teachers, police, cleaners or aged-care workers. It's a tax cut for the high end of town, for well-paid professionals, who will have a high standard of living relative to others without a tax cut. That's why Labor will move amendments in the Senate to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 to ensure the passage of tax cuts starting on 1 July. We will seek to implement better, fairer tax cuts through Labor's tax refund for working Australians. This would double the tax relief up to $928 a year. It will mean that the 57,000 people in Canning, the 63,000 people in Forrest and the 65,000 people in Moore will receive an increased tax refund. However, what we've seen is the Turnbull government's tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit wealthier electorates. So it's not surprising to me that this government has seen tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit inner Melbourne and inner Sydney electorates, but it is of great concern and a disgrace that Mr Andrew Hastie and the Turnbull government are not standing up for the people of Canning—the good, hardworking people of Mandurah, Pinjarra and Byford and all those across the Canning electorate. As I move around Canning, I talk to constituents about their struggle to make ends meet and the fact that they juggle numerous jobs just to earn a modest income. They will tell you how they're overworked and underpaid or struggling to find enough work to get by. People who are struggling to find enough work to get by deserve a better, bigger tax cut than the high end of town because they rely on every cent of what they earn just to get by. There's no rational reason to take the same amount of tax out of their income as is taken out of my or your much higher incomes. We see that up to 70 per cent of taxpayers will be better off under Labor's fairer tax plan, and that includes 57,000 residents who live in Canning. Seventy per cent of the hardworking taxpayers in Mandurah, Pinjarra and Byford will be better off under our tax plan. And I suppose the Prime Minister does try to help, in his own way, when he says, 'They should just get a better job.' Try telling that to every single cleaner, storeperson, shop assistant, orderly, retail worker or hospitality worker. We need people to do these jobs. We need them to have incomes that keep those industries viable. They need good wages. We need to see wages growth in those industries. We know those industries will never see wages growth that compares with wages growth for high-paid professionals, but we need them to do those jobs. Why do you rub people's faces in their own professions in that way? We have to value the work that Australians do, because it needs to be done. Every day, in our communities and in our cities, we depend on the great diversity of work that people do, be it well paid or low paid. People on low wages should get better pay, but the simple fact is, because they are on lower wages and we need people to do that work, we should not, in our right mind, ever consider taxing them at the same rate as wealthier Australians. The absurdity of it is absolutely disgusting. In our nation, inequality is at a 70-year high. We should be taking steps to do exactly the opposite of what the government is doing, and that is taking steps to improve and address inequality and to remove inequality in our system by using our tax and transfer system and implementing principles that are exactly the opposite of what this government is seeking to do. With overall inequality worsening, there are negative impacts on our economic growth. The best thing we can do to fix that is to have a strong, progressive taxation system where those who can afford to pay more do pay more and those who can't afford to pay as much aren't asked to pay as much. We need a government that stops standing in the way of tax relief for the 10 million Australians who need it. We need a more progressive taxation system, not a less progressive one. Tax cuts this year for teachers and tradies should not be held hostage to tax cuts for bankers or highly-paid professionals in six years time. The Turnbull government's priority is for tax cuts for big business and high income earners, at a stupendous cost of $25 billion a year in 10 years time. I don't think our nation can afford that—our schools and hospitals can't afford it, our TAFE system can't afford it, our social services can't afford it, our public sector can't afford it and our defence force can't afford it. The fabric that holds our community together simply cannot afford it. Labor, on the other hand, because we're not giving millionaires another tax cut and we're not giving big business an $80 billion tax handout, can put more money into the pockets of working Australians while funding better schools and hospitals and paying down debt quicker. This bill will make our tax system in Australia less progressive and it will continue to erode our tax base. It doesn't deserve the paper it's written on. 10:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to contribute to this debate on a tax cut for millionaires, put forward, of course, by the Turnbull government. The whole essence of this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill rests on what types of priorities we have in this place and on what types of priorities we have for the nation. On one side we have the Turnbull government wanting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars—taxpayers' money—in tax cuts for the big end of town, in addition to the tax cuts they've already flagged and have tried to push through this place already in relation to corporate Australia and the big banks. Malcolm Turnbull's priority is to look after the big end of town—to look after the corporates, the big banks and rich, wealthy Australians. Meanwhile, everybody else is going to cop a cut in access to public services. That is the choice here. It's about priorities. Malcolm Turnbull wants to fund the billionaires and the big banks but those of us trying to stop these tax cuts from going through are asking: 'What happens when regular Australians need to go to hospital? What happens when someone's kid is sick? What happens when you rock up to school and you realise your public school is charging families school fees up to $4,000 to send their children to public schools, because we don't have money for the education system? What happens when a mother can't go back to work because childcare is too expensive?' These are the choices that we are being presented with in this bill today. The government can only spend and invest money based on what it collects. We know that we don't just have a tax problem here. We have a problem with collecting the right amount of tax, because tax avoidance in this country, particularly from the big end of town, is rife. If you're a big corporate bank and if you're in corporate Australia, you can find many, many ways to reduce your taxable income. If you're a rich Australian, you can find the best accountant in the country to make sure you pay no tax at all. Meanwhile, average Australians are struggling day by day, and they rely on public essential services right around the country. If you collect less tax as a government, you're going to have less money to spend on public services. If we have less revenue, that fundamentally undermines the ability of governments to do what they need to do, and that is to underpin essential services that are available to everybody—schools, hospitals and the broader health system—and to ensure that, if you lose your job and you're on unemployment benefits, Newstart payments are enough to live on so you can be supported until you get another job, not punished by living on less than $40 a day just because this government wants to prioritise giving millionaires $7,000 back. That's what's on the table here. Someone on an average income is perhaps, if they're lucky, going to get around $200 in a tax cut. And yet the wealthy Australians, the millionaires and, in fact, the politicians—those of us in this place—will get $7,000 out of this. That must be pretty galling to people out there listening to this debate. We're told by the neoliberals on the other side that, despite being a wealthy nation, we can't afford things like proper funding of hospitals, or to ensure our elderly are taken care of in their aged-care homes, or for schools to be funded properly so parents don't have to fork out thousands of dollars just to send their kid to a public school. We're told we can't afford these things, and yet hundreds of billions of dollars in this package today are going to roll out the door in election bribes by this government. The neoliberals on the other side have done a very good job at trying to hoodwink the Australian people. Although we are a very wealthy country, the neoliberals have done everything they can to undermine and run public essential services into the ground. They want to give people a false choice: you can choose between Malcolm Turnbull's handout to millionaires or you can choose to fund public services. Spending, of course, is all about priorities, so is revenue and so is where we collect our revenue from. This government finds many, many ways to undermine the bare collection of revenue, because they don't want to upset their big mates in the banks, in corporate Australia or, indeed, in the rich end of town. This government says to average Australians and those who are struggling living on the median wage: 'We can't afford to help you, if you fall through the cracks. It's 40 bucks a day from Newstart if you lose your job. Suck it up.' No. That is not a choice we should be forcing Australians to make. If you turn up to university in this country, you should be able to access a good-quality education, regardless of how much money is in your parents' bank account and regardless of what private or public school you may have attended. We need more young people, not fewer, being able to access good-quality higher education, whether it's through universities or the TAFE sector. That means we have to fund education properly. We have to make it available and accessible for all, not just for those whose parents are on the top of the rich list and are going to bank a $7,000 tax cut out of this and their kids will be okay. We need all Australian children to access good-quality education and know from a very early age that if they want to go on to university or TAFE they'll be supported in doing so. We should make that a guarantee. Every Australian child should know that if they want to get a higher education they can get one; they shouldn't have to be in the top income bracket to do it. This is what making government spending priorities is all about. Australians overwhelmingly know that the trade-off, or the dividend, of paying their taxes should be good quality public services. Australians don't mind paying tax if it means having good quality schools and being able to access the emergency ward in the hospital if someone falls over and breaks their hip or if a child is sick in the middle of the night. Australians don't mind paying taxes if they know that they're going to go to a well-funded NDIS. Australians don't mind paying their taxes if they're going to have a strong Medicare safety net. Australians know that being part of a decent democratic society is all about having the people who can afford to pay a bit more pay a bit more so that those who are struggling can be helped to get back on their feet. A progressive taxation system is essential for the fair and decent society that we are all proud to live in here in Australia. That is under attack from this legislation and agenda of the government because all they care about is looking after the big banks, the rich end of town and Malcolm Turnbull's mates. If the Prime Minister really cared about productivity growth in this country, he'd fund child care properly so that more women were actively supported to go back to work. But what we will see come 2 July is a bunch of families losing access to their childcare support, particularly those families where both parents struggle to be in the workforce. The absolute lunacy of this tax bill is that it spends hundreds of billions of dollars as an election bribe, yet the majority of Australians who work hard every day and those who struggle to get into the workforce, those on unemployment benefits, really get nothing from this. No wonder Malcolm Turnbull's mates want this to pass, because they're going to bank $7,000 from it. Meanwhile, average Australians and the rest of the country will lose out because hospital waiting lists will grow, because school fees will rise and because our older Australians will continue to suffer in old aged-care homes. Look at my home state of South Australia. We know that the overwhelming majority of the tax cuts outlined in this bill are going to go to those who are already the most well-off, those who are earning well above $120,000 a year. That's about five per cent of South Australians. So five per cent of South Australians might get something out of this, but 95 per cent of South Australians will get very little. In fact, there will be a double whammy because our state relies significantly on well-funded essential public services. As a result of this priority choice by this government to fund the rich and cut services most South Australians will lose out. By the time the full impact of these tax cuts is realised, South Australia will be losing around $2 billion from essential services—that's cuts to schools, that's cuts to hospitals and that's cuts to other essential services. Bad luck if you need to put your kid in child care so that you can take an extra day of work a week. You won't be able to afford it, because the Turnbull government isn't going to be able to fund child care in this country. Our universities and TAFEs are going to lose funding. They'll be $105 million worse off. We'll lose $305 million in spending on hospitals and health care. We can't afford that. We have an ageing population, particularly in South Australia, and we want to make sure our older Australians are looked after with dignity and with care. Yet the government is going to slash $305 million in funding used to support essential health care in South Australia. We'll lose $905 million on pensions and payments, and this is a very clear message to the people of Mayo—those South Australians who live in the Adelaide Hills and down along the Fleurieu Peninsula down to Victor Harbor. This tax cut for Malcolm Turnbull's mates is going to cost age pensioners and other recipients of government funding almost a billion dollars! How are we going to look after our aged and elderly Australians if we don't have the money to fund it? But who will be laughing? It'll be Malcolm Turnbull's mates, who are banking $7,000 a year. I guess that's a nice overseas holiday. The government says: 'Look, don't worry about it. Everyone'll be paying less tax.' The reality is most Australians rely on public services to ensure that we can get through our daily lives. We all respect our well-funded public hospitals and health system. We all know that we need a public education system to ensure that there is a proper safety net, to ensure that our kids can go to school and get a good education, regardless of whether their parents have a job at the time or how much money their parents have in their bank account. In South Australia, these tax cuts mean that for every dollar that is given in a tax cut, South Australians are going to lose $1.40 in public services. On anyone's maths, that's a lose-lose. South Australia loses massively in this bill, and that's a message I have for the members of Centre Alliance here today. Don't buy this government furphy. You've got a choice here: tax cuts for millionaires and Malcolm Turnbull's mates, or funding for South Australian schools, hospitals and services. As one of the smaller states and as one of the states with the lowest number of high-income earners in the country, South Australia loses out significantly under this bill. As a South Australian senator, I'm standing here today to say: do not risk it. Do not buy the furphy that you have to hand politicians a $7,000 tax cut in order to make everybody else feel okay. We don't need the $7,000 tax cut. What we need is more money for schools, more money to cut hospital waiting lists, and more money to ensure that working mums and dads in the electorate of Mayo actually can access well-funded child care. That's what we want the government to prioritise. I say to the Centre Alliance members in this place today: don't buy the lie that you should just tick this tax cut through. Does anyone really believe that if we start giving tax cuts to the big end of town, to politicians, to Malcolm Turnbull's millionaire mates— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator Hanson-Young, I will remind you— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Does anyone believe if we start giving tax cuts to the big end of town, to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's millionaire mates, that anyone is going to come in here after the next election and rescind any of this? I don't believe the Labor Party's going to do that, and I certainly don't believe the Liberal Party will ever do that. Don't be fooled, I say to senators Griff and Patrick of the Centre Alliance. Once this tax cut is in, it will stay. Don't risk it. On that, I want to point out the sheer hypocrisy of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in relation to all of this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator Hanson-Young, again, if you could— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I think it's absolutely important to understand the sheer hypocrisy of the One Nation party, led by Senator Hanson. Supporting this bill means supporting rich Australians, millionaires, and doing nothing for those battling on average incomes. This gives money to the richest and wealthiest Australians at the expense of funding for the age pension and funding for hospitals. This final stage of the tax cut does absolutely nothing for 60 per cent of taxpayers in this country. We have Senator Hanson snuggling up to the government again, selling out the majority of Australians—all of her voters—to tick off on what is going to be the biggest tax cut given to millionaires in a long, long time. Senator Pauline Hanson is going to vote for this bill to give herself a $7,000 tax cut! What a grub! What a sneaky, sneaky move! What a sellout! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator Hanson-Young, I would remind you of the standing orders. Perhaps 'grub' was not particularly parliamentary. I'd ask you to withdraw that. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I withdraw calling Senator Pauline Hanson a grub. I'll replace it: Senator Pauline Hanson is going to come into this place to vote to give herself a $7,000 tax cut—sheer hypocrisy! What an absolute sellout! This tax cut will do nothing to lift wages. We know we have a wage-growth issue in this country. This tax cut will do nothing to help people on Newstart or, indeed, the minimum wage. What this proves, and what Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation's deal with the government proves, is that they're all about feathering their own nests and doing nothing to help regular Australians! 10:27 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I too rise to put my remarks on the record with regard to this very important proposed piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. This bill has the potential to have a significant and profoundly negative impact on Australians, as it is constructed by this government. I find that we hear once more—in the throes of the drama and intensity of these last two weeks of sitting before we go to another break—the government saying: 'This has got to be done now. This has got to get sorted now. On 1 July, the whole world's going to fall apart unless we get this resolved.' The pressure, right now, as I am making this contribution to the debate, is being applied to the crossbench, some of whom—or their advisers—I hope might be listening to my contribution. I want to point out how important it is that everyone understands that the Treasurer himself has conceded that the legislation does not need to be in place by 1 July for the tax relief that's being discussed to be received by the end of next financial year. That's the reality. This pressure cooker that's being created is an artifice. In this hastily constructed pressure cooker, we shouldn't be making decisions that would affect people six or seven years hence with such negative consequences, in my view, for our economy and, more profoundly, for our community. We're being faced with a choice by this government, with its litany of failures in service provision, between continuing along the path that it has set of taking away more and more services from Australians and throwing money, a little bit of money, at those who need it most and extraordinary sums at people on $200,000, who are not clamouring at the doors of this place saying: 'Give me $7,000. I can't survive without it.' That is not the challenge that is facing us in this parliament. The challenge is people clamouring at our doors, day in, day out, asking for the funding of basic services. There are over 100,000 Australians right now who are seeking aged-care packages. They're desperate for some help in their home so they can stay there. They're desperately in need. I see Senator Brown has joined us in the chamber here. People are trying to get decent services for disability needs. People are speaking to me in my role as the assistant shadow minister for mental health, despairing about suicide in their community and being unable to access services. That's the landscape: the service deprivation that has been imposed upon this nation by this government over five years of ripping money out of the services that Australians should have a right to expect. And having done that now, its grand plan, in addition to having abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility and budgetary constraint, is to try and buy off Australians by throwing some tax money at them in an entirely inappropriate and unfair way. That's why Labor will oppose the way in which this government wants to advance tax reform in this country. Budgetary decisions are all about choices, and Labor is going to choose services for all and tax cuts for those who need it most. It contrasts profoundly with the government's proposal of giving tax cuts of a shape and form that six years from now—when kids in year 7 have finished high school—in 2024 will deliver a tax structure where 80 per cent of the benefit will flow to the top 20 per cent of wage earners in this country. If I only repeated that fact over and over and over in my contribution, if only that single fact could seep into the conversation about this proposed tax reform by the government, Australians would understand what a dog they're being sold and how cruel and unfair this government's proposal is. The bottom 60 per cent of all workers will get no tax benefit at all by 2024, if this government's bill passes as it is. That's the shape and form of what we're discussing here and why the debate that we're having is so important. This government's Personal Income Tax Plan demonstrates exactly how out of touch this government is. We as the Labor Party do not support someone on $200,000, which is the standard pay for most of the people who work in this parliament, paying the same tax rate as someone on $40,000. That is plainly unfair. We've seen this over and over in the course of this Liberal-National Party government with the prioritising of the top end of town over ordinary Australians; the prioritising in terms of tax where the cost is not just a lack of income benefit to low- and middle-income earners but the ongoing removal of services and the ongoing cuts to services absolutely across the horizon, if it gets this piece of legislation through. I want to have a little bit of a look at a distributional analysis. If we look at the impact of this government's decisions, we can see that it has failed to provide any form of a distribution analysis of its Personal Income Tax Plan. But Labor and interest groups have, and it's very clear that stages 2 and 3 of the proposed tax reform by this government absolutely and totally fail the fairness test. Let's be absolutely clear here: stages 2 and 3 of the government's tax plan will flatten out Australia's personal income tax system, and that structural change to the personal income tax system is eroding its progressivity. This is a fundamental principle of our tax system, and it's based on the premise that, if you earn a small amount of income, pretty well everything that you earn goes to keeping a roof over your head, providing food, providing shelter and providing for the basics, but as you go up the tax scale, with those things accommodated, there is an increase in your capacity to contribute to the general wellbeing of the community and to pay a bit more tax so that we have decent hospitals and schools that are properly funded, where parents can send their children through the gates of any school in the country and know that there'll be readers for the kindergarten kids to read from and paper and resources for teachers to creatively engage with young people in high school. We trust that our tax dollars, invested on a slightly higher scale by those with a bigger income, benefit our entire community. I can tell you from this morning, when I was at the Kids' Cancer Project breakfast, that no-one in that room thinks there's adequate funding going into the prevention and treatment of cancer for young people. They were there asking the government, the opposition and anybody who would listen to hear their pleas for further investment in proper research capacity. The reality that we face right at this moment in our country is a choice between Labor and a Liberal government who have no commitment to decency, to fairness or to equity. The attempt to force this inequitable piece of legislation through the chamber should be abandoned. 10:37 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria These tax cuts are saying to Australians that whatever government might be providing for you at the moment is more than you need. Whatever you receive at the moment, whether it be an education in a public school, treatment in a public hospital, using public transport or, indeed, some sort of family assistance payment, it's too much. You're already getting too much, because what the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 does is strip away vital public revenue from those essential services. This bill, more than most of the other bills that come through this place, is going to help determine what sort of country we want to create. We've got some big choices ahead of us: we can choose to continue down the path of the Liberal and National parties to a dog-eat-dog world where everyone's in it for themselves and we shrink public services, or we can create a different sort of world, where we collectively come together, understand that we're in this together, invest in our people and ensure that no person languishes for months on a waiting list and that every young child gets access to the best possible education they can get—a world where we have publicly owned infrastructure that provides all of the vital services that people need and where we have a strong social safety net so that no-one's left behind. That's the sort of future we can create. It's not a utopian dream; it's actually within our grasp here. It's just about the choices that we make in this chamber. We've been told by politicians of all stripes for more than a decade that Australia can't afford to do these things—that we can't afford to increase Newstart, tackle climate change or protect the threatened species that exist in this continent and are disappearing at an alarming rate. In fact, we're going to do worse; we're going to cut the jobs of the people responsible for looking after the precious biodiversity in this island continent of ours. And we're now hearing a debate where the premise seems to be, 'My tax cut's bigger than your tax cut.' Some $144 billion is going to be taken out of public services. We're told that the reason for this change is to address bracket creep, yet wages are at an all-time low. This bill's not about bracket creep. It's about shrinking the size of government and the public services that follow from that, and it's about making sure that people who need a little bit of help don't get that help. We've got some choices ahead of us. We know that healthcare costs are increasing. We know that our education system needs more support. We know that our infrastructure is failing. We can afford to invest in all of those things. We could have a world-class public health system so that no person in this country languishes on a public waiting list. We could make sure that every child in the country gets access to a world-class education and, indeed, that those people who choose to send their child to a public school don't have to spend a cent out of their own pocket. We could build cities and regions that create no net pollution. We could preserve our planet for future generations to enjoy while they prosper. We can start restoring our environment, rather than destroying it. And at the heart of this debate is a lie. We're told that income taxes are too high, but the reality is very, very different. Australia is, by all indicators, a low-taxing country. When you consider our total tax take as a proportion of GDP compared to other similar OECD countries, we do very well. We're a low-taxing country. Yet we're told again that we have to reduce taxes, and the consequences of that are alarming. Our Public Service is already so badly decimated that it can't answer the phone when you call to find out why it's cancelled your pension or a family assistance payment. Past governments have spent the last two decades privatising government. We've got big corporates enjoying all of the upsides and everyday people getting stuck with all of the downsides. You only need to look at the announcement today from Telstra. Do you remember when Telstra was privatised? 'Better services. People will be looked after. We're going to save money.' There are 8,000 people today who don't know how they're going to be able to put food on their table. Yet we've got no-one in this place who's got the political courage to stand up and say: 'We don't need tax cuts. We need investment in services. We need to look after people. We need to raise Newstart. We need to start protecting our environment.' No-one has had the courage to stand up and do that apart from my colleagues in the Greens, and I want to thank each and every one of them for it. These are financially reckless tax cuts. They're going to punch a $23 billion hole in the budget annually. If you look at stage 3 alone, they're going to grow by 12 per cent each year. It's completely unsustainable. We can't afford it. We know what the costs are. And we all know that, when it comes to issues like global warming, housing, student debt or work security, it's not going to be the people in this chamber who are going to have to deal with those issues; it's going to be the generations that come after us. It's going to be young people today who are going to be lumbered with the costs of this decision that we make in this chamber. We know that these tax cuts are a prescription for turbocharging inequality in Australia. When stage 3 kicks in, someone on the minimum wage will be paying the same rate as a bank executive or a politician. That's not a progressive tax system. It's taking us down the US route. And, of course, like the Turnbull cabinet itself, the big winners are men, and women get a few scraps, with less than one-third of the top-end tax cuts. We've seen some analysis today from Professor Miranda Stewart at ANU, who has added more evidence of just how discriminatory against women these tax cuts are. You have to be working full time to get the benefit, yet 45 per cent of women work part time. For men, it's only 16 per cent. And 61 per cent of women caring for a child under the age of five are working part time, while for men it's only eight per cent. If you look at the interaction between these tax cuts and the new childcare payment starting next month, the research shows that a mother wanting to work a few extra days would get to keep just $4,000 if she earnt $27,000 in additional income. If you're a young mother not earning a high wage, you face an effective marginal tax rate of between 85 per cent and 95 per cent. Professor Stewart's conclusion is that we'd be better off investing the tax cut money into universal child care. Now there's a ripping idea which benefits women so they can live the lives they want to lead and doesn't hand out tax cuts which largely benefit men. Of course, the Treasurer's been deceptive in selling the benefits of this tax cut to senators and the public: $82,000 isn't the normal wage; it's the average salary of a full-time working bloke. The median wage of all Australians is around $54,000. Under even stage 1 of this tax cut, you can be a family with a combined income of just under $250,000 and you'll get a tax cut. The benchmark that the government's using, of a regular worker on 82 grand, is only a quarter of the workforce. Three-quarters of the workforce earn less than that. This plan's too focused on wealthy Australians. It does nothing for ordinary people. I reckon that if the majority of Australians—by definition, those earning less than $54,001, so, anyone under the median wage—knew they were getting nothing in exchange for having their local schools and hospitals completely gutted, people in this place might reconsider. Let me be clear about that: there will be a few dollars a week in the pocket of somebody who's a childcare worker, a nurse or a teacher and, under stage 3 of this plan, an extra $7,000 for CEOs, politicians and bank executives. This bill does nothing to address the concerns of the most vulnerable people in our community. People on Newstart or on a pension get nothing out of this bill—not a cent. If you're somebody who can't afford to take out private health insurance to jump a queue and you're languishing on a waiting list for a year to have your hip replaced, you get nothing out of this; in fact, you'll be waiting for longer, because every cent of this money that's spent on giving out a big tax cut is a cent not spent on cutting waiting lists. If you're somebody languishing in an emergency department for half a day to be seen, you get nothing out of this tax cut; in fact, you'll be waiting for longer. If you're a family who sends their child to a public school and are noticing that those out-of-pocket costs are growing each year, they will continue to grow, at a faster rate, because every cent that goes into the pocket of somebody on a high income is a cent that's not invested in our public schools. It does nothing for mums re-entering the workforce for one or two days a week. It does nothing for a carer who is looking after their elderly parents and can just fit in a few days a week of work. It does nothing for the lowest 40 per cent, but this bill does everything for the investment banker, for the politician, for the CEO and for the partner in a law firm helping their clients to avoid paying taxes. We've got choices to make. If we want to have tax reform in this country, let's start talking about the real problems that we face. We don't have a tax system; we have a tax avoidance system. Let's start talking about the tax reform that's necessary to close those loopholes that mean the wealthiest Australians and corporations aren't paying their fair share at the moment. Let's introduce a Buffett rule which says to people, 'It doesn't matter whether you've got the fanciest accountants and lawyers in the world; you will be paying a minimum of 30 per cent tax on every cent over $300,000.' Let's look at reforming our tax system. Let's have a PRRT that means that those oil and gas companies, who are currently ripping out Australian resources and not paying a cent of tax on them, start paying for Australian resources, for the things that we all own. Let's make sure that miners who are not paying a cent of excise on the diesel that they use start paying that. If it's good enough for every Australian in the country when they go to the bowser to have to pay a diesel excise, why isn't it good enough for our mining companies? Let's do something about multinational tax avoidance. Let's stop the practice of those big companies lending themselves money from offshore tax havens. Let's make sure we close that loophole by introducing worldwide gearing ratios. There's so much that we could be doing right now to close the loopholes to ensure that the wealthiest Australians, those corporations that aren't paying their fair share right now, pay their fair share, and we wouldn't be having a debate about stripping money away from our schools and our hospitals. We in the Greens believe unashamedly that now is not the time for income tax cuts. We believe that a decent society is founded on how we look after the most vulnerable people, those people who are struggling, which is why we've made a strong case for increasing Newstart. And we've heard nothing from the government or, indeed, from the Labor Party on that. We don't need a review into Newstart; we need to increase it. Let's make sure that as a nation that is losing biodiversity at a rate greater than almost any other nation on earth we start putting into practice some of the things that we know can help us protect our iconic Australian animals. We oppose this retrograde package in its entirety because we believe this is going to fundamentally reshape Australian society. This is a nation founded on the notion of egalitarianism, of a fair go, and there's nothing fair about this tax package. When economic inequality is already at dire levels, this is a prescription for turbocharging inequality in Australia. It will leave our schools, our hospitals and our public infrastructure to wither on the vine and it will make Australia a less equal society. It's not a future for this country that I want to see. It's not a future for this country that my colleagues want to see. That's why when this bill comes before this Senate we will be opposing each and every element of it. 10:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland No-one can say that One Nation is responsible for the passage or the fall of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. Everyone in this chamber carries that responsibility. I would like to see families, those hardworking Australians, and resident companies pay less tax, but the question is: can we afford it? The government says we can afford $140 billion of personal tax cuts and $60 billion of company tax cuts over a 10-year period, which means the cost to the revenue base is $20 billion a year, or seven per cent of the income tax base. The government has no plans to reduce wasteful spending, so how will the $20 billion shortfall in taxation income be made up? In the last financial year, high commodity prices, particularly for iron ore and coal, led to the surprise increase of 22½ per cent in company income tax receipts. The government says these additional taxes are sustainable income in the long term, even though commodity prices go through a boom-and-bust cycle. The government has made a large number of assumptions about future income that in my view are not realistic, and a never-ending commodity boom is but one of them. I come back to whether the tax cuts proposed by the government, both personal and corporate, are affordable. If they prove not to be affordable then we will see a dramatic decline in frontline services or an increased national debt. It is no accident that in an election year the government wants to rain money down on citizens in the form of tax cuts. There are five by-elections coming up in July and there will be a general election in the next 12 months. In stage 1 of the proposed personal tax cuts, the government promises $10 a week in the form of a tax offset. Labor say $10 a week is an insult. They will up the bid for your vote to nearly $20 a week, but these tax offsets end in four years. A by-election in the electorate of Longman, in Queensland, will take place in July. The citizens of Longman paid $784 million in income tax to the federal government in 2015-16. These taxpayers paid more in income tax than 80 per cent of multinational companies and their Australian subsidiaries, but still the government says we do not have a revenue hole created by multinationals not paying a fair share of tax. In the past 20 years we have had both Labor and Liberal national governments, and neither party has had the wit or the will to do anything to fill the revenue hole created by foreign-owned companies and their wholly owned subsidiaries. How can the government say there is not a revenue problem when 39 fossil fuel companies operating in Australia pay no tax, and they include our biggest electricity providers, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia? The two major parties want to tell you they are different, but when it comes to getting multinational companies to pay tax in Australia they are one. We estimate the revenue hole left by non-resident foreign companies operating in Australia to be big enough to pay for the government's proposed tax cuts for individuals and companies. When we talk about getting multinationals to pay tax in Australia, Labor is like the scarecrow with no brains and the Liberals are like the tin man with no heart, walking down the yellow brick road in search of everything they lack, which is why so many voters give their vote to a minor party. Around 25 per cent of votes are given to minor parties, which reflects the disconnect between the major parties and what concerns Australians. The majority of Australians do not want population growth driven by high levels of immigration and they do not want to pay more tax than they should. The big four banks in Australia pay 25 per cent more income tax than all the multinational companies and their subsidiaries operating in Australia. The biggest corporate taxpayers in Australia are banks and resource companies. The Commonwealth Bank paid $3.3 billion, followed by Westpac, with $3 billion, and NAB, $2.4 billion. ANZ paid $2 billion. The highest amount of tax paid by a multinational was $386 million. How on earth can the government say there is no problem with the conduct of multinationals and their subsidiaries in Australia? If citizens want a more equitable and fairer society, then multinationals have to pay their fair share of tax, and citizens need to communicate that at the ballot box when they cast their vote. A vote for the One Nation candidate in Longman is a vote for a change in dealing with multinationals, who expect to pay nothing for all the things that allow them to operate profitably in Australia. Voters in every by-election need to tell politicians that being asleep at the wheel on multinational tax is not good enough, and the best way is to give your vote and your preferences to candidates who say they have a viable plan. The average Longman taxpayer paid $12,000 in income tax in 2015-16, while 26 per cent of multinational subsidiaries operating in Australia paid nothing. The list, of 145, includes Chevron Australia Holdings; ExxonMobil Australia; Puma Energy, who operate petrol stations across Queensland; American Express; and Vodafone Hutchison Australia. There is not time to read out the full list, because it is a long list. The length of the list of multinationals not paying tax in Australia should be a matter of shame to the government and the previous Labor government. I have been talking about non-resident companies failing to pay their tax for over 20 years. I am sick of hearing that the ATO has all the laws and staff it needs, because self-evidently that cannot be the case when fossil fuel companies pay more in political donations than they do in tax. I have been talking to the government about budget repair since I became a senator. I have told the government at every opportunity that they need to get multinationals and their wholly owned subsidiaries to contribute to the income tax base. I have strongly advocated for reform of the gas taxation system, but the government is not interested. All I can do is make Australians aware of the facts and let them decide whether it is an issue that will help decide which candidate receives their vote. One Nation's policy on multinational tax reform and reform of the gas taxation system is well documented. It is pleasing to hear now that Senator Di Natale, in his comments today about taxes and multinationals not paying their taxes, has clearly been listening to my comments in the chamber for the last two years and has now picked it up and is running with it, the same as he did with the Australians building the rail line in Queensland to do with the Adani mine. So it's good to hear that he's actually been listening to me and taking up this case. I supported company tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million, but I will not support further tax cuts for businesses until the government acts to repair the budget through a new tax base from multinational companies. I find myself in a dilemma over whether or not to support the government's Personal Income Tax Plan, which costs more than the extension of the company tax cut plan. I do not understand why the government is so reluctant to fund tax cuts with a new tax base created by getting multinationals and their wholly owned subsidiaries to pay their fair share of tax. I do not understand why the government's plan for personal income tax cuts is so complex. In stage 1, the tax offset of $520 ends in four years and becomes a tax offset for those on very low incomes. In stage 2, effective in four years time, the threshold amounts in different brackets change. In stage 3, effective in six years time, one tax bracket disappears and the tax rates change. Once the second reading speeches are finished, the Senate will go into committee to debate amendments to this complex legislation. The government does not want to split the three stages of personal tax cuts even though there is broad support for stage 1, starting on 1 July 2018. Tomorrow, senators will be asked to undertake a difficult process not dissimilar to comparing mobile telephone plans. The government's failure to split the bill into three stages creates a dilemma for me because stage 3 starts in six years time and no-one can predict whether we will be able to afford tax cuts legislated now. My dilemma is that I know Australians are doing it tough. Wage growth is very low. Certain cost-of-living items are rising much faster than wages. People are struggling to pay electricity bills. They manage by going without adequate heating or cooling when needed. Electricity bills are the No. 1 cost-of-living concern for Australians, and that is a tragedy in a country rich in gas and coal. Labor has come to see me this week to seek support for their position, which is to support stage 1 of the personal tax cuts while increasing the tax offset. Labor tells me that stage 2 of the personal tax cuts should not be supported, because a threshold move will give those on $90,000 to $120,000 a windfall of $1,350 and later, in stage 3, those on $200,000 tax relief of up to $7,000. Do I need to remind Labor that tens of thousands of electricians, plumbers, nurses, secondary school teachers, lift mechanics and welders earn more than $90,000 and will miss out on a permanent tax cut if Labor opposes stage 2 of the proposed Personal Income Tax Plan? These are your voters. These are people who are possibly just on a basic wage. Then they get offered overtime to earn those few extra dollars, yet you are denying those people you are supposed to support: the battlers. And they are the battlers; it's not a fortune that they're making. Let me also remind this house that the average backbench politician on $200,000 will receive an extra $4,000, but many will get much more because their salaries are much higher than $200,000. How can Labor and the Greens deny these tax cuts to hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians on taxable incomes from $120,000 up to $200,000 when they have accepted pay rises in excess of six per cent in recent times? Individuals who work in isolated and dangerous workplaces and are highly skilled have taxable incomes much greater than $100,000, and they include 31,998 coalminers. Mining technicians earn an average taxable income of $118,409; 2,706 plant operators earn an average taxable income of $136,985; and 234 pressure welders earn an average taxable income of $107,210. I challenge Labor, who argue against tax cuts of $1,350 for those on $90,000 to $120,000 in four years time, to reject their minimum wage increase of $4,000 a year from July 2018. Bill Shorten will pocket an increase of over $7,000 from 1 July 2018 but says those who work long hours do not deserve a tax cut of a similar amount. I challenge Labor to set an example and reject the two per cent pay rise awarded by the Remuneration Tribunal last week. Knock back your pay rise, Labor. You don't want to give anyone— Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247871 Order! Senator HANSON BK6 I was one of six senators in March last year to vote against a pay rise until a budget surplus is delivered. For the record, all Labor senators and the Greens— Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247871 I urge the chamber to come to order. It has been a fairly diplomatic house since I've been here, so I urge the chamber to come to order and allow the senator to present without disruption. Senator HANSON BK6 I was one of the six senators in March last year to vote against a pay rise until a budget surplus is delivered. For the record, all Labor, Greens and Liberal-National Party senators voted for their pay rise in March 2017. So did some of the crossbenchers. Remember, only six senators—and they sat on this side—voted for a pay cut. But those same senators who voted for their pay rise now say it is unaffordable for others to receive a modest tax cut. Hypocrites! The Australian Greens do not support any of the tax cuts because they feel every dollar is needed by the government— Senator Urquhart 231199 Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is reflecting on members of this chamber by calling us hypocrites. I would ask that she withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247871 The expressions in this chamber have been far ranging. The senator didn't direct that remark to any person in particular. I don't think there's a point of order. Senator HANSON BK6 Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I've had to toughen up in this place; it's a shame others don't do the same. The Australian Greens do not support any of the tax cuts because they feel every dollar is needed by the government for refugees, the Safe Schools program and subsidies for unreliable energy sources that will drive up electricity prices, and they want to dramatically lift the amount of money helping those in foreign countries. Labor wants to double the foreign aid budget, but the Greens want to almost triple the foreign aid budget to $12.28 billion. They want to give foreign aid, Australia's taxpayers' dollars, to overseas countries. They're not worried about hardworking Australians and giving them tax relief here. They want the money to go overseas—$12.28 billion. Senator Hanson-Young read the bill and spoke on it, but unfortunately she did not understand it. It's quite funny when the senator makes comments about me. She said that I'm getting a tax cut. No, I'm not. I'm on the same wage as Senator Hanson-Young. The tax cuts are going to be up to $200,000. I'm a very fortunate Australian to be earning more than $200,000. I am paying tax of 45c in the dollar on that. I'm not getting tax relief. To make that comment is to mislead this parliament. I don't think she understands it. If she's really worried about pensioners and the battlers and everyone out there, then I suggest that she flies economy class, like I do, instead of sitting up the front of the plane, at more cost to taxpayers, or taking her child on a taxpayer funded whale-watch—or the overseas trips. What can I say? That there are people in here expecting Australians not to get a tax cut makes the whole place a joke—yet they don't want to take tax cuts themselves. The whole thing is that hardworking Australians need a helping hand. They need to know that they are going to get something back—that something is being done for them. They are sick and tired of seeing everyone else around the world getting relief—we give foreign aid to everyone. People here are struggling to pay their bills. Because of the Greens in this room, renewable energy is sending up electricity prices and the cost of living. Australians cannot keep going at this rate. My dilemma is this: yes, we have a black hole, but are we going to fill that black hole? My proposal is to go after the multinationals to pay their fair share of tax in this country and to look after Australians, the hardworking families that need some relief and need help in this country. Yes, suspend taxation and suspend increases in politicians' wages and those of bureaucrats. How can you say to hardworking Australians, 'You can't get tax relief—even the highest amount of up to $7,000 a year,' yet bureaucrats are receiving pay increases of up to $17,000 a year? That doesn't pass the pub test for the Australian people and it doesn't pass the pub test for me. My job in the Senate is to represent the Australian people to the best of my ability. I will make my vote clear on the floor of the parliament. I will listen to all the amendments that are going to be put up and I will make a decision based on what I think is right for the Australian people. 11:12 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I will be brief in my contribution to on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill. At the outset, I can indicate that Centre Alliance will be moving an amendment that omits stage 3 of the income tax cuts. I understand Labor will move an identical amendment. As an alternative to our amendment we will support theirs. Centre Alliance supports the stage 1 tax cuts. Stage 1 involves an end-of-year rebate for low-income earners and raises from $87,000 to $90,000 the income tax threshold to which the tax rate of 37 per cent applies. The combination of the two will return between $135 and $665 to low-income earners, depending on their income. It's our belief that stage 1 will provide much-needed relief for low-income earners. Centre Alliance will also support the stage 2 tax cuts. These tax cuts are scheduled to commence from July 2022, with the threshold for the 32.5 per cent bracket being lifted from $37,000 to $41,000 and the threshold for the 37 per cent bracket to go from $90,000 to $120,000. This will give tax relief to low- and medium-income earners and to mum and dad professionals, who have worked hard all of their lives and have helped to generate the recent growth we have seen in the economy. They are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their inputs to our economy. Many of the people in this tax bracket are dealing with large mortgages, high electricity bills and a general rise in the cost of living. As stated, our amendment knocks out stage 3 of the income tax cuts. Stage 3, which is scheduled to start in 2024, abolishes the 37 per cent tax bracket from the system, creating one middle tax bracket of 32½ per cent for workers who earn between $41,000 and $200,000 a year. We're not convinced that this is prudent at this point in time. We also note the distance in time between the passage of this bill into law and when the amendments come into effect. Whilst we are sympathetic to the idea that companies investing large sums of money on projects spanning multiple years, if not decades, may need to know tax rates into the out years, the same can't be said of individuals. So why commit to this law? Why not wait until there is clarity in the budget bottom line in 2022 or 2023 and then change the tax regime for high-income earners? Having said that, we do reserve our position in regard to the third stage if our amendments are not successful or if an amended bill is rejected in the House, because we do think that low-income and medium-income earners deserve some tax relief. 11:16 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I won't delay the Senate unnecessarily, but I do want to get on the record that the Australian Conservatives wholeheartedly endorse and support the government's approach to making personal income tax simpler and fairer in this country. You won't be getting ducks and drakes from us. There'll be no mysterious, 'I'll consider how it's going to come out in the wash.' I entirely support the government's package, because not only is it putting forward tax relief for low-income earners but it maps a pathway of tax relief and some certainty and surety for all taxpayers in this country. Quite simply, we pay too much tax. Government does not spend our money well enough to maintain the punitive rates of taxation that are impacting the lifestyles of everyday Australian families. It is absurd that our tax brackets are not indexed, that they are not flatter and that more cannot be done to reduce the need for people to pursue tax schemes which are disadvantageous to a great many. For those in this place who say that they want to see capital gains tax changes or changes to negative gearing, I would argue that, if you flatten the tax scales and reduce the need for people to pursue these schemes, the benefits of them to those that are taking advantage will also be reduced. So what we should be doing is looking to lower the tax thresholds across the board to simplify the accounting and taxation affairs for every single Australian. I also want to make the point, for the class warriors on the other side of the chamber, that about 48 per cent of Australians don't pay any net tax. The burden of taxation in this country is falling disproportionately on those who pay the most tax. That is the simple fact. If you want to reduce the tax burden, we need to reduce it, necessarily, on those that are paying the bulk of it, and we should also be reducing the cost of living and the onerous requirements that government imposes on those who are less fortunate than many of us. You can do that by reducing or taking out the government rorts and attachments that are in our energy industry. You can make our energy more competitive. You can reduce the need for people to pursue negative gearing, as I've touched upon, which will help make housing more affordable. You can reduce the bureaucracy attached to people's employment so that small business is further empowered to employ people and to drive the growth in our economy. They are the simple measures. We don't need more government. We don't need to give more money to government. We need to get government the heck out of people's lives and let them take some responsibility for themselves. This tax package goes some way to doing that. I endorse it. I wholeheartedly support it. I hope the Senate will do that as well. If they want to have an election based upon one side of parliament putting up taxes and the other side reducing them, I say bring it on, because you will then have a commitment from the Australian people that they endorse low taxes and they think government is not worthy of taking more of their own money. 11:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Here we are engaged in a race to the bottom between the coalition and the Labor Party on personal tax cuts. Anyone would think there's an election in the air—oh wait; there is an election in the air. Within 12 months the Australian voters are going to be choosing who they want to represent them in this place, to be their government, and—surprise, surprise!—the Labor Party and the coalition are engaged in a race to the bottom on tax cuts. This debate at its heart is about what sort of country we want to be. I'm so proud that the Australian Greens senators are the only ones in this place standing up against this unholy race to the bottom on tax cuts and standing up instead for increasing the funding and quality of essential public services in this country: schools, hospitals and public transport; support for people with disabilities; funding for the environment, the fight against climate change, and threatened species; and funding for productive, long-term infrastructure for this country. The Australian Greens want both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to properly fund those things, not this race to the bottom on tax cuts, which is designed solely to try to solicit votes at the upcoming election. Over the last two decades in this country there has been a deliberate attempt by the Labor and Liberal parties to pull apart our society. Economic inequality has massively grown because of decisions made by both the Labor and Liberal parties. Taxes have been cut for the big corporate donors to the Labor and Liberal parties. Personal income tax has been slashed, especially for the wealthiest people, while Newstart, which is supporting the people doing it toughest financially, has not been raised for a generation—nearly 25 years. There has been a transfer of wealth from the less well-off to the most well-off, and now the Labor and Liberal parties are proposing to transfer yet more wealth, via these tax cuts, from people doing it tough to people who already have more than their fair share of our national wealth. There's a stark choice facing the Australian people and this parliament at the moment. On one hand we can continue to run down our schools, hospitals and essential public services; on the other hand we can stand up for increasing the funding and quality of our essential public services. On one hand Labor and Liberal, neither of whom support raising Newstart, can continue to punish the poor to reward the rich; on the other hand the Australian Greens will stand up for people on Newstart. We want Newstart to be increased by $75 a week to give people a fair crack at rebuilding their lives and to help them avoid those impossible choices between putting food on the table, paying the school levies or paying the power bills. We can rebuild our Australian society in line with the values of looking after people doing it tough and of funding an increase in the quality of essential public services, or we can continue in a race to the bottom on tax cuts. I want to say something to the people of Braddon, who are facing this choice in their upcoming by-election. The choice for the people of Braddon is clear. They could vote for a tax cut that redistributes wealth from those at the bottom to those who already have more than their fair share. Remember, stage 1 of this tax plan will give a tax cut to people who earn $120,000 a year. That means that, if you're in a household with two people lucky enough to be earning 120 grand a year—that is a household that earns in the region of a quarter of a million dollars a year—that household is going to get a tax cut, but the people of Braddon on Newstart are being offered nothing by the Labor and Liberal parties, so they've got a choice. Either they can vote for a candidate—Jarrod Edwards, an outstanding Greens candidate in Braddon—who knows what it's like to do it tough, who was raised in a family on welfare, who knows what it's like to live on Struggle Street, who's campaigning strongly for a legislated increase in the minimum wage and a legislated increase in Newstart, or they can vote for Labor or Liberal candidates who want to give a tax cut to people on $120,000 a year. That's the choice facing the people of Braddon. I urge them to support Jarrod Edwards, the Australian Greens candidate, as the only candidate taking a policy to this election to increase Newstart. Of course, that would provide a significant economic benefit to Braddon, which sorely needs it. With an increase in Newstart and with an increase in the minimum wage, you would see cash starting to flow more freely through the economy of Braddon, which would help businesses in Braddon—everything from small businesses in the corner shops to small businesses in the manufacturing sector, to people on farms and right through the economy of the north-west coast of Tasmania. The choice for the people of Braddon is very clear. You can vote for Jarrod Edwards and the Australian Greens for an increase in the minimum wage and an increase in Newstart, or you can vote for your Labor or Liberal candidates and vote to give tax cuts to people on $120,000 a year. 11:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank all senators who have contributed to this very important debate. Obviously the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, which seeks to implement the government's plan to provide income tax relief to hardworking families across Australia, is a very important part of our plan for the economy and jobs to help low- and middle-income earners with cost-of-living-pressure relief but also to provide the right incentive, reward for effort and encouragement to all working Australians. With those few words, I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247871 We have a foreshadowed amendment to the second reading, and we have an amendment that has been moved. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, on sheet 8464, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:32]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 35 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Williams, JR (teller) 5 PAIRS Bartlett, AJJ Sinodinos, A Cameron, DN Smith, DA Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Moore, CM McKenzie, B Polley, H McGrath,

Question negatived.

11:36 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move the second reading amendment which was foreshadowed during my speech in the second reading debate. At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate is of the opinion that: (a) the bill should not be considered until the minimum wage is lifted to 60% of the median wage, and Newstart, Youth Allowance and related allowances are increased by $75 a week; and (b) the revenue used to fund the government's Tax Cut Plan should be invested in health and education services, public infrastructure and the social safety net, instead of being used to fund tax cuts." The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Di Natale on sheet 8466 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:40]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

8 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 57 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Cormann, M Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR (teller) Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McAllister, J McCarthy, M Molan, AJ O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Smith, DPB Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Urquhart, AE Watt, M Williams, JR Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:44 The PRESIDENT I0Q We now move to the question that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 18 11:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd like to seek to move some amendments immediately and then make a few comments. Obviously, in the second reading debate we have outlined in detail Labor's approach to this tax package. We've outlined Labor's better, bigger and fairer tax relief for working Australians. We have also indicated that we do not support steps 2 and 3 of the government's plan and the reasons why, so I don't propose to traverse those again. I would again remind the Senate that, apart from the Australian Greens, as I have discerned, every contribution from senators in this place has supported step 1 of the tax plan. What we are part of at the moment is a debate on a bill where the government is seeking to hold those tax cuts for working Australians—which would start next month—hostage to a tax plan it wants to implement in six years time. There is no logical reason for that, and the Senate ought not to agree to it. In addition, I want to come to step 3 of the government's tax plan. As I outlined yesterday, we do regard this as both fiscally irresponsible and inherently unfair. It is fiscally irresponsible because, as I outlined in my speech on the second reading, this is a series of changes which grows in terms of its cost to the budget when it comes to fruition, or when it matures, at 12 per cent a year. I made the point in my speech on the second reading yesterday that that is substantially higher than the growth in expenditure we see across other areas of the budget. It is, for example, from memory, some three times faster annual growth than the defence budget and, I think, close to six times faster annual growth than expenditure on family tax benefits and so forth. What the Senate is being asked to do is to lock in a change to the structure of taxation in this country which will grow over the longer term at 12 per cent per year, thereby either rendering other decisions by government unsustainable or imposing decisions on key expenditure programs by government such as health, education and arguably even defence. If there were an expenditure program that was growing at 12 per cent a year you would hear those on the other side demanding that it be reduced. I intend to move a range of amendments consistent with Labor's position that I've outlined in the speech on the second reading. What I would like to get to, because I think it is the area where there is most concern in the chamber about the tax plan, is our amendments on sheet 8450 which seek to remove the step 3 tax rate changes and those in later income years. I would seek leave to move items (4), (6) and (8) together, which remove the step 3 tax rates. These are the tax rates that the government is seeking to change from 2024-25. What I would say to members of the crossbench and senators in this place is that we have two objections to this. One is a fundamental policy objection. It is a fiscal risk. It locks in a very fast-growing program which costs not only billions of dollars a year but grows at 12 per cent, which has consequences both for the budget and for economic and fiscal risk. It is also a fundamental restructure of our tax system. As I referred, one of the academics who made submissions to the Senate committee talked about this as being contrary to essentially 100 years of progressive taxation in this country. It is the wrong thing to do. I make the third point that it was well made by Senator Storer in his very careful and considered speech on the second reading that there is no reason to allow the government to hold these tax cuts, which would occur in six years time—you would have to elect Malcolm Turnbull twice—and make them a pre-condition of tax cuts which can be delivered next month. That is nothing other than a political strategy. As Senator Storer said: There is no reason to legislate tax cuts four and six years away except to hold future parliaments to ransom and hold out to voters what may well prove to be false hopes. I seek leave to move amendments (4), (6) and (8) together. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU The Labor Party oppose schedule 2 in the following terms: (4) Schedule 2 , item 2 , page 14 (starting at line 3) , table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income to be opposed . [tax rates] (6) Schedule 2 , item 5 , page 15 (starting at line 6), table dealing with tax rates for non-resident taxpayers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income to be opposed . [tax rates] (8) Schedule 2 , item 9 , page 17 , table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income to be opposed . [tax rates] 11:51 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will be opposing these amendments. We obviously believe—in fact, we are confident—that the bill as drafted is in the best interests of all hardworking Australians. It of course prioritises low- and middle-income earners in the first instance, providing cost of living pressure relief to low- and middle-income earners. It then also ensures that we provide the right and appropriate incentive to all working Australians to continue to work hard and ensure that working Australians don't go backwards as a result of bracket creep. Bracket creep is the result, even without moving up the career ladder, of inflation. Our income tax thresholds aren't indexed, which means that, if we do nothing, more and more middle-income Australians will be pushed into the higher and higher income tax brackets, which is a significant disincentive to work harder. It is also recognised as a drag on economic growth. What does a drag on economic growth mean? It means that growth will be less than it could be. A growth that will be less than it could be means that there will be fewer jobs created in the economy. Who hurts the most when there are fewer jobs created in the economy? It's low- and middle-income earners. They are the most exposed to lower growth and they have the most to gain from stronger growth, and there are a lot of economic studies that back that up. I would also make the point in response to what Senator Wong has just indicated. This is not an item of government expenditure. This is a decision by the parliament to leave working families around Australia with more of their own money. It's their money. The government should only take as little as possible but as much as necessary to fund the services and the administration of government, which ought to be and must be as efficient and as effective and as well targeted as possible. That is, of course, the commitment of our government. Senator Wong says that this somehow completely undermines the progressivity of our tax system. That is completely and utterly wrong. Right now, the top 20 per cent of income earners across Australia have to pay more than 60 per cent of the income tax revenue generated by government. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 So they should. Senator CORMANN HDA 'So they should,' says Senator Whish-Wilson. Okay. Guess what happens if we legislate our seven-year plan in full? At the end of that seven-year period, do you know how much the top 20 per cent of income earners will be paying in income tax generated across Australia? More than 60 per cent. So, there's no change to the progressivity of our tax system. You know what will happen if we don't legislate this plan in full? We will be hitting aspirational, hardworking middle Australians harder and harder, and that 60 per cent will become 65, 70, 80 per cent. We in this country don't have automatic indexation of our income tax thresholds. That means that just by wage inflation, just by simple inflation, more and more middle-income earners get pushed into the higher tax brackets, where they have to pay more tax on the income they take home. That is not even taking into account the fact that if you work more hours you get penalised. You work more hours; you get penalised by being pushed into a higher tax bracket. So why would you work more hours if working more hours means that you go from 37 per cent to 45 per cent plus the Medicare levy? It is absolutely recognised that bracket creep is a drag on economic growth and that it is absolutely desirable for bracket creep to be addressed in order to ensure that there isn't an entrenched structural disincentive for working Australians to continue to do everything they can to get ahead. Senator Wong says that this is about binding future parliaments and that Malcolm Turnbull would have to get elected two more times for this to take effect. No, no; that is actually not true. The Senate is able to legislate today the full seven-year plan and give certainty to working families right across Australia that not only will we provide cost-of-living-pressure relief in the short term, prioritising low- and middle-income earners; we also will do everything we can to appropriately address bracket creep so that all working Australians have the right incentive, the right encouragement, the right reward for effort, the right incentive to continue to work hard and to contribute to our great country. They don't have to elect Malcolm Turnbull two more times to lock this in. The Senate is able to lock this in today. The Labor Party are making an assumption about what future parliaments might want to do. It might well be that the Labor Party want to add further tax increases to their pre-election agenda. Good luck to them! Good luck to them going to the next election promising to the Australian people that they will increase the tax burden on the economy by more than $200 billion, which everybody knows will hurt the economy. It will hurt families; it will cost jobs. The Labor Party is quite entitled to go to the next election with a higher-taxing agenda. We will not go to the next election with a higher-taxing agenda; we will go to the next election with a commitment to keeping taxes on families as low as possible and to ensuring that taxes on business are maintained at a level that is globally more competitive so that all Australians, today and into the future, have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Senator Wong also says these tax cuts are not affordable. Yes, they are. Over the medium term the cost is $144 billion, which is a figure that we've openly and transparently released to the public and to the parliament, in sharp contrast to what the Rudd and Gillard governments did when they tried to increase the tax burden on the mining industry. We had to drag them kicking and screaming into releasing the medium-term projections of the revenue they expected to raise from their resource super profits tax and the minerals resource rent tax. We've provided that information quite openly and transparently. And do you know what you can see in the budget papers? What you can see in the budget papers is that over the medium term, over that whole period, not only does the budget get into a small surplus by 2019-20 and progressively into a larger surplus but we are projected to exceed a surplus of one per cent of the share of GDP by 2026-27 and to remain in surplus all the way through—and that is after we have factored in the cost of this important reform which allows working families around Australia to keep more of their own money. I just close on this point. I'm very interested to see that Senator Wong is moving an amendment effectively to excise the third stage out of our three-stage, seven-year long-term plan. I guess that means that the Labor Party have already given up on actually doing what they said they would do, which is to oppose everything other than the first stage of our seven-year plan. It's very interesting. Normally in this chamber the way this process is managed is that you start off with getting all you want and then you progressively work your way backwards to being forced into the position where, if you can't get everything you want, you aim to get an amendment up that gives you 70 or 60 per cent of what you want. It's interesting that Senator Wong in her first amendment hasn't even tried to implement the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. It must mean that the Labor Party's split. It must mean that Senator Wong has stabbed Bill Shorten in the back and turned on Bill Shorten, because she's not in here promoting Bill Shorten's policy to actually excise stages 2 and 3. Maybe Senator Wong is a secret supporter of stage 2 of our three-stage, seven-year plan to provide income tax relief to working families around Australia. I'm very intrigued that the first move that Senator Wong makes in this chamber would not be a move to implement the policy that was articulated by the Leader of the Opposition. Is it now the Labor Party position that you support stages 1 and 2 of our seven-year plan to provide income tax relief to working families around Australia? I would be very interested. Is that now your position? It's a very interesting move by Senator Wong here which is in sharp contrast to what Bill Shorten, as leader of the Labor Party, has signalled into the community would be the Labor Party position. In fact, as the Labor caucus finished and the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer gave a press conference yesterday, the indication that the Australian people were given was that Labor would move to remove both phase 2 and phase 3 from this income tax bill. That is not what Senator Wong is doing in her move now. Senator Wong, essentially, has now accepted stages 1 and 2. I congratulate the Labor Party that you've moved along from one to two. There's only one more step to go! Now that you support the first two phases of our income tax relief plan, which is in three parts, I encourage you strongly to reflect on the fact it is very much in our national interests and in the interests of working families around Australia for us to, yes, provide cost-of-living-pressure relief for low- and middle-income earners but also to address bracket creep so that all working families around Australia have the right incentive, the right encouragement and the right reward for effort so the Australian economy can continue to grow as strongly as possible and as many jobs as possible can be created. 12:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Greens have been very consistent throughout this debate that we won't be supporting any elements of this government's tax cuts package; nor will we engage in an arms race or an auction on tax cuts with the Labor Party. We've been very clear all the way through that we believe in services and not tax cuts. Anybody who thinks that you can take $144 billion out of our economy, out of revenue raised by taxes, without savage cuts to— The CHAIR: I beg your pardon; sorry, Minister. Are you seeking a point of order? Senator Cormann HDA Yes. On a point of order: the senator is misleading the Senate. We are not taking anything out of the economy. At best, there is something that comes out of the budget. The CHAIR: Minister, that's a debating point, thank you. Please continue, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 The Greens as a party believe that government has a strong role to play in the lives of Australian people. We believe that governments and the provision of services are absolutely essential to our quality of life, for caring for people, for looking after the environment. We've always said that. We also believe governments have a role, a collective responsibility, to invest in the Australian people and in the economy through, for example, infrastructure programs. You can't have $144 billion of revenue without an opportunity cost, Senator Cormann—to you, Chair. Sadly, we haven't had a debate about the opportunity costs of $144 billion. But I do want to pose this question to the Australian people: if you could invest $144 billion, what would you do with it? What this government's doing today and what the Labor Party are doing with their package is simple. They are saying: 'How much is your vote worth at the next election? If you're earning $37,000, $40,000 or $45,000—up to $60,000—we'll give you $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, maybe $10 a week. That's what your vote is worth to us. This is a bribe.' This is an election trick. It is a bribe for the Australian people. But if you were to say to the Australian people, 'Would you rather your $5 a week was invested back in a world-class education system, a proper healthcare system, a fully funded NDIS, an NBN, a threatened species plan or reducing climate change?' I bet you, London to a brick, that Australians would say: 'That's your job. That's what I elect you for. You invest that money for the future of our society and our kids.' That's what the Australian people would want. That's not the way this question has been posed, but that is fundamentally what we're debating here today. We've had a very consistent position that we won't be supporting any of these tax cuts. Now is not the time to be cutting revenue—taking revenue and giving it back in tax cuts. What else have we seen cut in recent times? Can any senator in this chamber put their hand on their heart and say that we have enough revenue now to cover our services and fund our needs in society? No. Everywhere we look, this government is cutting funds, and it has been cutting funds since it was first elected. Think back to the zombie budget cuts in 2013-14. Think of the efficiency dividends. I'll list a few things for you, Senator Cormann. Hundreds of millions of dollars were cut from ARENA and $334 million was cut from the ABC, with more to come—there's absolutely no doubt about that. There've been cuts to legal aid funding, the Medicare rebate freeze, billions cut from family tax benefit supplements, cuts to ASIC, cuts to CSIRO, cuts to the environment department, R&D offsets cut, local government grants cut, ATSI Affairs cut—I could go on. We don't have enough revenue at the moment, so why are we taking $144 billion of tax revenue and giving it back in tax cuts, a few dollars a week, to the Australian public, who I'm sure have put us in this place to make sure that tax revenue is properly invested? So, while we don't support tax cuts at this point in time, we do want to make sure that what we do in this committee stage at least improves the bill in any way, shape or form so that, when it gets to the final vote, we can at least try to get a better outcome for the Australian people. This tax package is not a good outcome. It is a total con. We'll have a lot more to say about this during the continuing committee stage. 12:07 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia As foreshadowed in my second reading speech, Centre Alliance will be supporting this Labor amendment which achieves the same effect as the Centre Alliance amendment—that is, that stage 3 tax cuts will not occur. If this amendment is successful, I will just state that we will not proceed with our amendment on sheet 8463. 12:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I can't let this go unchallenged. I listened to Senator Whish-Wilson and his comments that we want to cut services. He made a list of where cuts have been made. I think the majority of Australians have no doubt that the ABC budget should be cut back, and it has been cut back, to the tune of about $84 million. But let's have a look at the Greens. What they're saying is that they are concerned about services here in Australia. They want to make sure that there are good educational services and good hospital care for the Australian people. Yet, if they had their way, our foreign aid would go up to $12.28 billion. That's not for Australians. That's to go overseas. They're worried about everyone else around the world. They're not worried about the Australian people here. Where's their concern? They are saying that the people here, hardworking Australians, are not entitled to a tax cut because we need the money for services. How can they say that when they're supposed to be here representing the Australian people and yet they're prepared to say they want over $12 billion to go on foreign aid if they had their way? So I think it is not fair to make that comment. They need to start focusing on Australia and the Australian people, because they want to open up the floodgates to 50,000 refugees. Every refugee in this country in detention costs the Australian taxpayer $572,000. That is a huge cost to the taxpayers. They want to start focusing on what is right for this country and the Australian people. As I said earlier, the Australian people are doing it tough because of extra costs due to the Greens pushing for renewables. That has escalated the cost of living for every Australian. The cost of electricity is out of control. I was just over in England with a delegation. An average family is charged 500 pounds to 600 pounds a year for electricity. An average household here is looking at around $2,000 a year. This is due to the Greens and the Labor Party wanting to raise the cost of renewables and the billions that will be paid to foreign companies. No-one is really addressing this. So stop tinkering around the edges. Be up-front and honest with the Australian people. Give the Australian people some assistance, because that's what they're crying out for. You are obviously not listening to them. 12:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have just a few very brief points. The first is that these parts we are opposing are in relation to step 3. The government would be aware and the chamber should be aware that we have a range of amendments across step 2 and we are seeking to insert Labor's tax plan. We seek to knock out the tax changes that would apply only from 2024-25. Senator Cormann sought to rebut some of what I said. He said, 'It's not a fiscal risk.' Well, you don't have to take my words for it. Take John Daley's words. His evidence at the Senate inquiry was: … economically, the chances of a significant economic downturn over the next six or seven years are pretty large … He also said: … we do not think it is prudent to be providing tax cuts of this magnitude that far in the future—certainly not to be legislating them … Second, he said that it's still progressive. Miranda Stewart of the ANU said that these changes are 'both an inefficient and a retrograde step that undermines 100 years of progressive income tax rate structure in Australia'. And he said that they're fair. The ANU's Ben Phillips has estimated that the effect of the government's plan is as follows: the top 20 per cent of taxpayers will see a 2.2 per cent rise in their income and the bottom 20 per cent will see a 0.2 per cent rise in their income. So the top 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers get more—a 2.2 per cent rise—and the lowest 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers get 0.2 per cent. Guess how much of this government's tax package will go to the top 20 per cent of households in Australia by 2027? Sixty per cent. I urge the chamber to support our proposal. The CHAIR: We are dealing with amendments (4), (6) and (8) on sheet 8450, as moved by Senator Wong. The question is that the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday makers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income stand as printed.

The committee divided. [12:18]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 34 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR (teller) Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:21 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia by leave—I move amendments (3) to (8), (10), and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441 together: (3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit "and Low Income tax offset". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit "and Low Income tax offset". (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note. (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 1 and 2), omit the note. (10) Schedule 1, page 9 (line 12), omit the heading. (12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item, substitute: 6 Section 13 ‑1 (table item headed " low income earner " ) Omit: substitute: (13) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 1 to 4), omit the item. (14) Schedule 1, page 10 (line 5), omit the heading. (15) Schedule 1, items 8 and 9, page 10 (lines 6 to 15), omit the items. I also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 10) to page 8 (line 12), sections 61‑110 and 61‑115 to be opposed. (11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (lines 13 to 18), to be opposed. (16) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 11 (line 1) to page 12 (line 16), to be opposed. Given our substantial debt challenge—$341 billion net debt in 2017-18, and growing—it is irresponsible to proceed with the full income tax plan proposed by the government at this point in time. The measures commencing in 2022 and 2024 lock in over $120 billion in reductions in revenue out to 2028-29. By Treasury's own admission, uncertainties generally tend to increase as the forecast horizon lengthens; therefore, there are larger error bands around estimates three, four or more years ahead. The geopolitical and economic uncertainties noted by Treasury in budget estimates in May demand the government prepare by focusing on debt and deficit reduction as well as maintaining essential services. We are in a substantially weaker budgetary position now than we were in 2007 in the lead-up to the GFC. There's no need to rush these changes that commence in 2022 and 2024. They are well beyond the scope of the forward estimates and the next election. There will be ample time between now and then for parliament to re-examine the appropriateness of these measures and decide whether to proceed with the additional elements of the government's plan. History tells us that tax cuts, once legislated, are very difficult to wind back; therefore, we cannot rely on an assumption that these cuts could be repealed or amended if unforeseen economic developments materialised. In the context of a recent uplift in government revenue, the measures set to commence from 1 July 2018 are affordable. Given rising cost-of-living pressures and wage stagnation, the new low- and middle-income tax offset is particularly warranted and should be locked in to provide lasting targeted support to low- and middle-income earners beyond the forward estimates. With that extension, information received from the Parliamentary Budget Office indicates that the amended plan I am putting forward would cost $46.75 billion compared with the $143.95 billion for steps 1, 2 and 3 of the government's plan as it stands, and $102.35 billion for steps 1 and 2. The amended proposal I am putting forward of $46.75 billion generates savings that would help us return to surplus sooner, pay down debt quicker and free up money to spend on critical social and infrastructure programs, and I hope that it meets with the approval of the chamber. 12:24 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting this amendment. We will be opposing this amendment. This amendment proposes to keep taxes around $100 billion higher than the government's plan over the medium term. I have to correct Senator Storer: it's not a saving; it is an increase in taxes compared to what the government is proposing to do. The government believes in lower taxes because individuals should be rewarded for working hard and be encouraged to get ahead. The government's Personal Income Tax Plan will make personal income tax lower, fairer and simpler. Without action, the tax system will increasingly penalise Australians for earning more as they move into higher tax brackets. This is why the government does not support the amendments proposed by Senator Storer. The government's plan will simplify and flatten the tax system, reducing the number of brackets from five to four by completely removing the 37 per cent marginal tax rate so that hardworking Australians keep more of what they earn. Senator Storer's amendments would mean that by 2024-25 taxpayers on an average full-time wage would still face a marginal tax rate of 37 per cent. The government's plan rewards these hardworking Australians by removing the 37 per cent marginal rate and will ensure that most Australians will face a marginal tax rate no higher than 32.5 per cent for their whole working life. Under the government's plan, around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less, compared with the 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged. The plan is a package and the government is legislating the whole package. We're committed to giving certainty to Australian families that they will keep more of what they earn in the future. Step 2 of the plan will have to ensure that incomes earned by Australians are protected from bracket creep. It helps to ensure that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours do not get eaten up by higher taxes. Step 3 of the plan will make the personal income tax system simpler and flatter by completely removing the 37 per cent tax bracket. By sticking to our plan for a stronger economy, the government is returning the budget to surplus and guaranteeing the essentials. Because a stronger economy delivers more revenue to the budget, we are able to afford our Personal Income Tax Plan. It is affordable and fiscally responsible. The plan is fully accounted for in the forward estimates and over the medium term fiscal projections, with the underlying cash balance returning to balance in 2019-20 and sustained surpluses thereafter over the medium term. The government is committed to a tax system that rewards effort and promotes opportunity, that is internationally competitive, that is capable of driving stronger investment and stronger growth for our economy and where, above all, all individuals and businesses pay their fair share so the government can deliver the essential services Australians rely on. In relation to the observations on the fiscal position of the budget, the return to surplus in 2019-20 and continuing projected surpluses over the medium term will, of course, enable a reduction in debt. As a result of living within our means, the government has turned the corner on debt. We're no longer borrowing for our day-to-day living expenses as a government. Net debt, as a share of GDP, is expected to peak at 18.6 per cent of GDP in this 2017-18 financial year. It's projected to fall to 14.7 per cent by 2021-22 and to 3.6 per cent at the end of the medium term. The gross debt will also peak in 2019-20 at below 30 per cent of GDP. Over the medium term gross debt will fall and be $126 billion less in 2027-28 than was estimated in the MYEFO last December, six or seven months ago. I should also say that government net debt is forecast and projected to reduce by $30 billion over the current forward estimates and $232 billion over the medium term. This reduction in debt has been achieved through careful management of the nation's budget, with the average annual real expenditure remaining below two per cent, which is the lowest of any government in the last 50 years, while delivering much needed tax relief to hardworking families and investing to further strengthen our economy and deliver a more prosperous future for all Australians. 12:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I just want to draw people's attention to the fact that we've just seen Senator Pauline Hanson, Leader of One Nation, in here voting to give herself a massive tax cut. I want to be really clear about this, because Senator Hanson was in here only an hour or so ago saying, here on the Hansard record during this debate, that she would not be getting any tax cut if this bill passed. Can you believe it? She's either got no idea what on earth she's voting on or she's lying to the Australian people and she's misleading the Senate. Let's crunch the numbers. Let's find out exactly how much Senator Pauline Hanson is going to get from this tax cut: an $11,815 tax cut. That's how much Senator Pauline Hanson has just pocketed for herself. That's what she's just voted for. She's just voted to feather her own nest. She came in here and lied to the Australian people. She lied to One Nation voters. She said she wasn't getting a tax cut at all. What a fraud. Senator Cormann HDA Point of order: Senator Hanson-Young is using unparliamentary language directed at a fellow senator and she should withdraw. The CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Senator Hanson-Young, I ask you to withdraw those remarks, without repeating them—without using the terms that you used in relation to Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Which words were they? I didn't call her a liar. I said she lied. The CHAIR: Nevertheless, I'm asking you in the spirit of good debate to withdraw the comment. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I didn't actually refer to her as a liar, even though I think she probably is. I said she lied. The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, this is not a debating point. I am asking you to withdraw those comments. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I would like a ruling on this, because I did not call her a liar. I said she lied to the Australian people. The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, as Chair I am asking you to withdraw those comments. Is there a further point of order? Senator Gallacher 204953 Yes, Madam Chair. Yesterday I was present in the chamber when Senator Macdonald repeatedly stated: 'Labor lies, Labor lies,' ad infinitum. So, if we're going to raise this point, I think we have to be consistent across the chamber. Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order, it is clearly against standing orders to reflect on senators in this chamber and to impute improper motive. That is what Senator Hanson-Young has been doing. The CHAIR: In response to you, Senator Gallacher, in my view it is clear that Senator Hanson-Young has reflected on a fellow senator. On the broader issue, when parties are referred to, I too was concerned about that and I raised it and sought advice. In my view there has been a reflection on a senator. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Chair, I make a couple of points. I understand Senator Gallacher's frustration. We get a lot of 'lying' accusations from the other side. I think your ruling is correct. If you look at precedents, past Presidents have ruled that an assertion that a group is lying doesn't have the same status as an assertion that an individual senator is lying. I personally don't quite understand the distinction but, as I understand the advice, that appears to be a distinction that has been observed—the former has been permissible and the latter hasn't. I would implore Senator Hanson-Young to recognise the Chair's request. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 On the same point of order, my understanding of the standing orders is that the context of how things are said is important, in terms of rulings. Senator Hanson-Young didn't say that Senator Hanson deliberately lied. She said she lied. It may have been inadvertent or it may have been deliberate; we don't know. In that sense, I'd ask you to reflect on the fact that she didn't say she deliberately lied. The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, I am attempting to uphold the standing orders and the spirit of debate. I think we can have a spirited debate without reflecting on, or coming very close to reflecting on, what may or may not have motivated other senators. I have asked Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw her comments. In consideration of open, and yes, robust debate, I would ask her to withdraw those remarks. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U In the spirit of the discussion, I will withdraw those comments and I will say this: Pauline Hanson's One Nation party came in here and lied to the Australian people, because their leader is getting an $11,815 tax cut and she, Senator Pauline Hanson, pretended in this place that she's not going to bank it. Senator Pauline Hanson is a fraud. The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. Minister. Senator Cormann HDA On a point of order: Senator Hanson-Young is misleading the chamber because she's making an assumption that, by 2024-25, Senator Hanson is still going to be a senator— The CHAIR: Minister, that is not a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA She's clearly very confident that Senator Hanson— The CHAIR: Minister, please resume your seat. That's a debating point, which you are free to debate next time you stand. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The important point here is that Senator Pauline Hanson has no idea what on earth she's voting on and what her party is voting on today, because she came into this chamber and she said that these tax cuts don't affect anybody who earns more than $200,000. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Why don't you get back to the substantive debate? Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U That is what Senator Hanson put to this chamber earlier today. So either Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have no idea what on earth they're voting on today or they want to cover it up and keep the Australian people and their voters in the dark. It'll be up to the voters to decide whether they think they're being misled or whether, in fact, Senator Pauline Hanson just has no idea what on earth is going on in this place. 12:36 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'd like to add to that and take the interjection of Senator O'Sullivan: why don't we get back to the substantive debate here? We have a situation in this chamber where a single vote will dictate whether a $144 billion tax package gets locked in for the Australian people, a package that my party, the Australian Greens, disagrees with so strongly on so many levels. If a senator in this place—and none of us is perfect; we all make mistakes, myself included—gets up in here during a critical committee stage before a vote to remove stage 3 of this bill and doesn't understand what she's voting on—literally doesn't understand the detail of why, even by changing a tax bracket, a threshold, she will benefit from that—then she simply doesn't understand how any of it works. That is not only dangerous for the Australian people— Senator Hanson-Young I0U It's negligent. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 It's negligent. We haven't heard the end of this. 12:37 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I would say is what I've said before: this is a very important, long-term plan to provide the right incentive, the right encouragement and the right reward for effort to hardworking families around Australia. We have a long-term plan to provide income tax relief to families around Australia which prioritises low- and middle-income earners. Over the next four years, the benefit goes to low- and middle-income earners. What I would say to the Senate and what I would say to the Greens is that I would draw the attention of the Greens to the fact that the value of the personal income tax cut for low-income earners is significantly higher than the value, as a percentage, for people at the higher income end. Senator Rice 155410 As a percentage! Senator CORMANN HDA Senator Rice laughs: 'Ha, ha! As a percentage.' 'As a percentage,' Senator Rice says, 'Oh! Oh!' So let me just explain to the chamber what this means. This means that, if they earn $30,000 a year, the value of our proposed personal income tax cut is a reduction of 8.3 per cent in their tax, an 8.3 per cent cut in their tax, in 2018-19, in 2019-20, in 2020-21 and—yes, you guessed it—in 2021-22. And do you know what happens to somebody on $200,000 in that period? Do you know what happens to somebody on $200,000 in the years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22? The value of the small proportion of the personal income tax cut that flows through to the higher income earners, because we are lifting the threshold from $87,000 to $90,000, is 0.2 per cent—0.2 per cent! Do you know how much tax somebody who earns $30,000 a year pays? They pay $2,197. I'm really sorry that we can't cut the tax for somebody who pays $2,197 in tax by $5,000! I'm really sorry! Not even this government can cut the tax for somebody who pays $2,197 by $5,000. That is not physically possible. But do you know how much tax somebody who earns $200,000 pays? They pay $67,097. So somebody who earns $30,000 a year pays $2,197, and somebody who earns $200,000 a year pays $67,097. And do you know what? In 2018-19 the percentage of cumulative tax relief is 0.2 per cent, in 2019-20 it is 0.2 per cent and in 2021-22 it is 0.2 per cent. It's great to see that the Greens have great confidence in the competitiveness of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the Greens are very confident that Pauline Hanson's One Nation will secure Senate seats in the election after next. We're going to have an election next year. We're going to have another election in 2022, which is when Senator Hanson will be up for re-election, and clearly the Greens have given Senator Hanson their vote of confidence today. Senator Hanson-Young today has expressed a clear, strong and unambiguous vote of confidence that Senator Hanson will be re-elected at the 2022 election. That is the implication of what Senator Hanson-Young has been saying—that outrageous slur that she has directed at Senator Hanson, one of our fellow senators in this chamber. Let me just explain further to all Australians who might be listening. If you are earning $50,000 a year, you will get, under this package that we are proposing to legislate today, a 6.2 per cent tax cut every single year over the next four years. If you are earning $80,000 a year, it'll be a lesser tax cut, but you're still getting a 2.8 per cent tax cut. So the point is: the more you earn, the lower the value of the tax cut. Obviously, if you pay more tax in nominal terms, in nominal terms it is inevitable that a small— Senator McAllister 121628 Nothing about this is inevitable; it's a series of choices. Senator CORMANN HDA Hang on. So here we have Senator McAllister having just stabbed her leader in the back, because she's just voted against Labor Party policy. Yesterday, out of the caucus came the Labor Party, including the Leader of the Labor Party and the shadow Treasurer, and they said, 'We will move to remove phases 2 and 3 of this long-term tax relief plan. Well, guess what: Senator McAllister has just voted in support of both stages 1 and 2, in complete conflict with the stated Labor Party position. She doesn't even realise that she has voted that way. Senator McAllister just shakes her head. Well, that is precisely what you've done: instead of putting your preferred position forward in front of the Senate chamber today, instead of coming in here with a policy that your Labor caucus allegedly adopted and trying to get majority support for the position that you adopted, you came in here with a position of another party. So clearly, somewhere overnight, the Labor Party position has shifted. Yesterday you only supported stage 1 and you were opposed to stages 2 and 3. Today you have voted—including you, Senator McAllister—for stages 1 and 2. That is the reality of it. Senator McAllister interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Are you saying that you did not vote in favour of stages 1 and 2? You did. That is the implication. The implication of supporting the removal of stage 3 only is that you are now supporting stages 1 and 2. It makes absolutely no sense for you not to have tried to get your policy tested in the Senate. You didn't test it in the Senate. You did not even try. Yesterday, with lots of fanfare, there were Bill Shorten and the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, saying, 'We are opposed to stages 2 and 3.' But here you're coming in now and endorsing stage 2. You're endorsing it. Senator Wong is shaking her head. That is precisely the implication of what the Labor Party has done in the chamber here today. The Labor Party has now shifted from just 1 to 1 and 2. If we keep this debate going for a bit longer, I'm sure that Labor will come all the way with the Liberal and National Party coalition to 1, 2 and 3. Try it! One, then 1 and 2; if we keep going a bit longer—we know that Bill Shorten is the wibble-wobble man—we get to 1, 2 and 3. Just go back to the Labor caucus. Say, 'We've already rolled over on our opposition to stage 2. We have voted for an amendment that locks in stage 2.' Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 27 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Royal Flying Doctor Service, Drought 27 12:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I must comment to Minister Cormann that he demonstrated some better dance moves there than the member for Dawson—if that is even possible! But now a change of pace, if I might. In the time I have I want to make two parts to my contribution to the chamber. The first is to place on the record, on behalf of, I suspect, all of us, our congratulations to the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia as they celebrated their 90th year of providing essential life-saving services to the people of Australia. I'll focus a little bit more in relation to my case as a senator for Queensland. Without the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Queensland, arguably over that period of time quite literally hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their lives. We have nearly 37,000 airlifts each year. When you're airlifted, for the most part it's because your injuries are very, very serious; indeed, in so many cases they are life-threatening. You're airlifted only because the most practical and essential thing to do for a patient is to take them to areas where there is a higher order of care. In my home state that's Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Brisbane, Toowoomba and places like that. Think about that for a moment as we pay tribute to this organisation. Almost 37,000 patients are transported by air every year. I ask colleagues in the chamber to contemplate communities in their states with a population of 40,000 people. Imagine, if you will, that every one of those people found themselves in need of critical or life-saving care and one organisation was able to service that entire community. It is an amazing achievement on the part of this wonderful organisation. It comes as no surprise to those of us who are big fans of the RFDS, and of course that view is not just my view. For seven years in a row, according to the charity reputation index of this country, they have been the most reputable charity. On top of the airlifts that I spoke of, of course, there are almost 70,000 road transport movements of patients each year. This isn't someone across town. This isn't someone who is taken from one medical institution in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Cairns or Townsville to another; these are movements that are largely from remote places where, again, if so many hundreds of thousands of these patients were not moved by the Royal Flying Doctor to be taken to acute care, many of them would be in a lot of trouble. There are 336,000 patient contacts a year across the country. This is where the Royal Flying Doctor Service provides clinics where they go into really inaccessible areas where the patients or people who are consulting them still might have to travel 300, 400 or 500 kilometres by dirt, making their way to these clinics and taking days out of their lives in many cases to be able to take advantage of the delivery of this service. I'm very proud to say this on the part of the government. I don't want to make a political point here, because I suspect that, even if it were a Labor government, they would quite properly pay attention to the proper funding of the RFDS. The second part of my contribution here to the chamber will be about drought and particularly drought in my home state of Queensland and the impact it's having. With the drought has come a massive increase in the incidence of people needing mental health care. So, accordingly, the Royal Flying Doctor Service have established a new mental health outreach service, and they've been given an $84 million funding boost by the coalition government to do that. Again, I don't want to try to make any political point about the funding announcement—although, of course, supporting the Royal Flying Doctor Service and organisations like that which service provincial, rural and regional Australia comes very naturally to the coalition. We've had a long and very close association with those remote areas of Australia. I think it is fair to say, unless someone wants to contradict me, that from a political point of view they support our government as well. Very few of the larger electorates away from the metropolitan areas are not held by a member of the coalition or a fellow traveller. I want to spend time speaking about the impacts of the drought in my home state, but let me close the first part of my contribution by congratulating—and I hope I do so on behalf of the entire chamber—the Royal Flying Doctor Service for a wonderful delivery of service to our nation over the last 90 years. On the drought, I'll concentrate on where I know best—my home state of Queensland. We've got 31 councils that are completely droughted and three councils that are partially droughted. This represents over 66 per cent of my home state. So two-thirds is under drought. Some of those areas have been under drought for almost seven years. I'm not going to repeat my arguments from before about how weakened these communities were as they went into the drought as a result of the issues that presented with the suspension of the live cattle trade into Indonesia in 2011. But in seasons that should have prepared them with more resilience to go into this dry period and drought they were denied that opportunity because of the impacts on the marketplace when quite literally millions of head of cattle came into the domestic market. That drove prices down to the lowest we had seen, in some instances, in 30 years. But I want us to consider something again. I want to, for a moment, pretend that we're in the House of Representatives and that we represent an electorate out west and that electorate has 100,000 people. I did this with my colleagues in our joint party room, without disclosing our discussion, some time ago. Imagine that, wherever you live, a third of the school population has left. They've gone. They're just not attending school anymore. They've actually left the district. In western Queensland, which is that far western area west of the Great Dividing Range, the population has decreased by 20 per cent in the last six years due to the impacts of the drought. We've got projections that suggest that Queensland will have a population growth of 32 per cent between now and 2025, but in these areas the projections are minus three per cent. Our unemployment average was at about six per cent. We had periods in the west where our unemployment was down around five per cent. It is now, in some places, up as high as 27 per cent. So these are people who don't have a lot of choices. The value of their homes has collapsed, in many instances by up to one-third, because of the drought and because of the migration out of the west of people who don't have jobs or job prospects, so they're left with the property they bought three or four years ago and it's now worth a third less than it was at the point of their purchase. I have so many more facts, and at my very next opportunity I'll finish with respect to my presentation on this point. This is critical. This is a natural phenomenon, if we accept all of the arguments, and it's a disaster. This is a natural disaster in the same way that cyclones, floods, fires and other catastrophes are. I urge all senators, at least for a part of their day, to turn their minds to the struggle that people of the west are having and reflect on it as they make decisions in this place. Economy, Cooper, Professor David, AC 29 12:55 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales We know in Australia that the economy, supposedly of jobs and growth, is absolutely not delivering for middle Australians. Hardworking Australian men and women are working in an environment where their efforts are simply no longer rewarded with higher wages. They're feeling the pain of that in the choices that they need to make for themselves and for their families, and the opportunities that they are able to provide for the children. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia has described Australia as experiencing a 'crisis of low pay'. We know that wage growth remains stubbornly at record lows. We've heard time and time again from hardworking Australian men and women that they're absolutely struggling with the current context of their wage situation. Rising costs of living and failure to manage the electricity costs of this country—despite their bragging about their solution to major national problems—sees this government simply out of touch with hardworking, ordinary Australians, who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. In that context, we have a government that continues to malign unions who stand up for hardworking, ordinary Australians. Many Australians find their first jobs in the retail sector, and I know that one very important union that represents them and helps them understand the rights and responsibilities that they have in the workplace is the SDA—the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. It's one of Australia's largest trade unions. The membership that it covers looks after young people and older people working in retail, in fast food, in warehousing, in hairdressing, in pharmacy and also in modelling. The SDA's continued and consistent advocacy has helped ensure that Australian retail and fast-food workers are, I'm glad to say, amongst the highest paid workers in the retail industry in the world. That didn't just happen by accident. It didn't happen by an act of generosity. It happened because of hard work by a union and its representatives in the workplace who stood up for working Australians. Earlier this year they demonstrated this again with their advocacy for the new Coles agreement that has recently come into effect and that covers the pay and working conditions of over 80,000 Australian workers. I'd like to take this opportunity to put on the record my congratulations to the SDA, their delegates and their members. In particular, I would like to single out a few delegates for their dedication and their hard work. Through their efforts they have managed to improve the conditions and lives of 80,000 Australian men and women, and that is no small feat. In particular I'd like to acknowledge Bernardine Kennedy from Greenhills, Glad Caldwell from Kotara, Kelly Brown from Kotara, Angela Chivers from Lisarow, Jill Kennedy from Salamander Bay, Donna Ball from The Junction, Iris Fraser from Newcastle, Charmain Cribb from Waratah, Moya Bell from Umina, Heidi Bodkin from Erina, Christine Weyling from Wadalba, Lynley Gosevich from Toukley and Mark Crowfoot from Cessnock. These are people who have stood up for their fellow Australians in their workplace. They have done that out of goodwill for their workplace, for the people who work alongside them and to make sure that fair conditions are actually enabled. The SDA and its delegates, on behalf of members, secured this new agreement, which included preserving above-award take-home pay and conditions. Thanks to their efforts, over 80,000 Coles workers will receive pay rises—in just a couple of weeks, in July—for each year of the agreement, and workers already received an immediate one-off payment earlier this year. This is particularly significant at a time when, under this government, wages are at record lows and cost-of-living pressures are crippling so many households. Thanks to their efforts, penalty rates, which remain a fundamental part of a strong safety net for Australian workers, will mirror the award. This is also particularly significant at this time when the Turnbull government will not join with Labor and the unions to fight to protect penalty rates. In fact, they nearly celebrated in dance-like movements on the other side of this chamber when penalty rates were cut. Thanks to the SDA's efforts, casual employees, subject to some conditions, have the right to request to convert to full-time or part-time work if they have worked a pattern of hours over 12 months. This is particularly significant at this time when the workforce is increasingly casualised, not due to the choice of workers. This matters particularly for young people, who need the benefit of secure work to have a sense that they can buy into their own future. What I've seen, sadly, in many of the young people I have met in the course of my work with mental ill health is a constant sense of uncertainty about the world in which they live, with insecure work, uncertainty about pay and conditions, and the removal of penalty rates. All of that's happened in the five years that this government has been in place. It creates a pressure cooker that manifests itself in distress and anxiety, which are absolutely on the rise. Among young people in particular, but increasingly across the nation, that escalates into the lack of hope and the despair that we're seeing manifest, in the worst instances, in terrible loss of life as people commit suicide. The work of unions, alongside good work in this parliament, can transform the lives of Australians for the better. Sadly, we've seen unions and their hard work totally maligned by those opposite. I know that the young people in my community who go to work are very much supported by the work of the SDA in ensuring that they find safe working conditions when they enter into their first job in retail. It's clear to me that the SDA and its delegates have done a remarkable job in securing improved pay and conditions for Coles workers. I want to commend them for their efforts and I want to signal to other large corporates that ethical practice in business is surely good for business as well as for the workers who are a vital part of that business's success. In the time that remains to me, I would like to put on the record my profound respect for an amazing Australian who passed earlier this year, Professor David Cooper AC. Professor Cooper, born in Sydney in 1949, sadly passed away earlier this year, and I was honoured to be able to attend his memorial service at Sydney Town Hall last week, on 14 June. There were many tributes to this remarkable Australian who gave his life to the medical profession, a man of incredible compassion and care for his patients, a man of wonderful intellect, and a man of generosity of spirit who transformed the lives of so many. When the AIDS crisis hit Australia, Professor David Cooper's practical work in discerning the immunity dimensions of that illness was world-beating. It was at the cutting edge. He continued in that work throughout his life. I felt it was an amazing tribute that so many attended from overseas to give him the acknowledgement that he so truly deserved. I want to point to the survival of Craig Cooper, a former patient of David Cooper and CEO of Positive Life NSW, who spoke at the memorial service about how Professor Cooper had looked after him and others. Craig contracted HIV very early on in the period when the disease was becoming known. It is just amazing, when we remember that people thought this disease was going to be a death sentence for everyone, to think that one of David Cooper's very first patients actually has outlived him and was there to pay tribute to him. What a remarkable testimony to the work of one man in his lifetime! I also want to acknowledge his amazing family for their generosity in sharing such a beautiful man with the world. Dorrie, Becky, Llana, Dan, Max and Teddy, your generosity in sharing 'Papa Coops', as you called him, with the rest of the world has left an amazing legacy. In your comments on the day and, indeed, in the notations in the book, you spoke of his delight in acknowledging others for enabling him to do the work. A man of great intellect, a man of great heart, a great Australian—we have lost him. I want to put on the record my great respect for him, his work and his family. Marine Plastic Pollution 30 13:05 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is a very special senators' statement for me today. I've just passed my sixth year in this place, officially. Nearly six years ago, as a new senator, I did my first 'senators' statements', as it was called—it's now a matter of public interest—on the growing threat of marine plastics, or plastics in our oceans. I understand it was the first speech that had ever been given in this place on the issue of plastic pollution in our oceans. When I gave that speech six years ago, the issue of marine plastic pollution was not yet seen by many people as a major environmental threat, but it was certainly something that I had been campaigning on for many years before I came into parliament. I mentioned two scientists at the time: Dr Jen Lavers and Dr Denise Hardesty, who were amongst a small group of scientists who had begun to sound the alarm about what was going on in our oceans. Since that time, through continued research and publications, the importance and urgency of this issue has become mainstream and has risen to be seen as one of the great environmental challenges of our time, globally. How quickly things are progressing gives me heart. I want to say here today that there is so much more we have to do and we need some real political leadership and action. The oceans cover nearly 70 per cent of the earth's surface. Madam Acting Deputy President McCarthy, I remember your first speech in this place and how you reflected on the importance of oceans to your community. The oceans account for 99 per cent of all the habitable space for life on this planet. I understand why so many people simply assume that through their sheer size and majesty they are impregnable to our human actions—but they're not. Thanks to us, the oceans are fast becoming broken. If you want to see heartbreaking testimony to this, please watch a film called Albatross by filmmaker Chris Jordan. This is a very powerful and moving testimony to our increasingly broken relationship with nature. Through this movie, you travel to Midway Atoll and live with the albatrosses. Because albatrosses have no natural predators, the filmmaker was able to live with them. He spent eight years filming these beautiful birds. Every atom and every molecule in those birds has, over millions of years of evolution, come from subsisting on the ocean. Now, sadly, these birds are collecting plastic every time they fly out over the ocean to feed. They are feeding that to their chicks, and they are dying in their thousands. This is a story that is repeated for our shearwaters off the Tasmanian and east coast of Australia and for so many other marine species—turtles, whales and dolphins. It is a really serious issue, and the movie Albatross is a very powerful testimony. It is really important to frame up this issue and make people understand what we are doing. In fact, the filmmaker postulates that Midway is halfway between the two great continents in the Pacific Ocean and that, if we don't change the way we live, we're halfway to our own destruction as a species. People don't understand that plastic pollution comes from our behaviour. Someone recently called it the 'detritus of humanity'. Plastic pollution is like the dandruff that the human species sheds into the environment as we get on with our daily lives. It's plastic bags, straws, chupa-chup holders—a whole range of things that make their way into the ocean as litter stream, break down and have very serious negative impacts. I understand how difficult it is to imagine that something seemingly so small would have such a big impact on something as large as our oceans and essentially become an existential threat to the life and species on this planet. I'll give you two reasons why. We produce so much of the bloody stuff—the world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic every year—and around eight million tonnes is estimated to go into the ocean. That's expected to triple in the next 20 years. One recent study of microplastics—and of course all plastic ends up as microplastics, which is bits of plastic that are small enough to get into plankton—estimated that, as at 2014, there are 51 trillion pieces of microplastic in the ocean. We are finding it in plankton in Antarctica and all through our oceans. Our oceans are turning into plastic soup. The message is that every little thing you can do helps to reduce plastic pollution, especially the way you live—reduce, refuse, reuse, redesign—but my message today is that it won't be enough to tackle this problem. We need hundreds of millions of people doing the same thing at the same time if we're actually going to beat this issue. That requires political action, not just here in Australia but globally. That's really what I want to talk to you about today. Since I made my first speech on this in 2012 we have had a very successful Senate inquiry. Senator Urquhart is in here today. I thank her for her participation in that inquiry into marine plastics. We released a great report. It was groundbreaking—we were the first parliament in the world to do this. It was called Toxic tide. It raised a lot of eyebrows and got international media attention. I point out today that the government is yet to respond to that report that is over two years old. But it has done a lot. It has crystallised a lot of action around this country. We've now seen, for example, container deposit schemes implemented in New South Wales, and they are close to being implemented in Queensland and Western Australia. We are seeing a gradual move towards banning microbeads and plastic bags, and other key recommendations. Yet the government is still asleep at the wheel on many of the key recommendations in that report. I would also like to say today that the science around marine plastic in recent years has been driving this debate, but we need so much more of it. We need it to be properly funded. This was a key recommendation of the Senate report. The Greens have recommended having a cooperative research centre, with five years of government funding, that is backed by industry and stakeholders all around the world. Let's throw the kitchen sink at this problem. It's not just understanding the impacts of marine plastic; it's looking at research and development on the solutions that are necessary for this. That will need industry participation. For example, how do we phase out single-use plastics? That is what's coming around the corner. We desperately need this research to help inform the debate and, hopefully, find the best way to take action. Since the speech six years ago, long-campaigning healthy ocean champions have had some powerful allies join their campaigns for healthy oceans. The Queen has recently come on board with this issue. She is a champion of healthy, clean oceans. Sir David Attenborough, with his Blue Planet series, has had a massive impact on this. Public attention has also grown through programs like the ABC's War on Waste. I'd like to make a special shout-out today to Stephen Oliver, the producer of that program, and his team—you've made a real difference in the Australian public's understanding and awareness of this issue. But the Australian government, on the other hand, hasn't. As with its approach to all major environmental issues, it has done virtually nothing to tackle plastic pollution. We're currently having a Senate inquiry into the waste crisis in this country. I won't go into that yet. I'm chairing that inquiry. I'm optimistic that we'll get some really good recommendations to back up the Toxic tide report on how industry and all Australians can make a difference in this respect. But we need the government to immediately respond to the Senate report and we need a threat abatement plan because, under EPBC law, marine plastics are classified as a threatening process. That threat abatement plan has not yet been released by the government—another critical area where they've fallen short. Look at what the rest of the world is doing. Only last week at their recent summit we had the G7 leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and European Union sign a healthy oceans plastic charter. We've had the UN Environment Assembly pass at their December 2017 Nairobi meeting a resolution to tackle plastic waste and marine litter. We've had the UK and the EU trying to outdo each other. Both leaders are having a war on waste. They're taking each other on as to who can reduce single-use plastics the most. Where is Australia? We have not responded to any of these international developments. Australia is a nation girt by sea. Australians love the ocean. Why aren't we a world leader in taking on this most critical of issues? We have the scientists, we have the technology and we have the vested interest in healthy oceans. I think most Australians would be on board with some strong action. While plastic pollution needs local and international responses, I would like to raise here today that, if we really want to phase out single-use plastics and deal with the major issue that we have in our ocean pollution, we should look at a Montreal Protocol type agreement, which we know was successful in putting in the plan to phase out CFCs to save the ozone layer. We need to lead a collaborative international action, join the rest of the world and show leadership on this most critical of issues. Education 32 13:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a pleasure to rise to make a statement today on an issue that I've been quite passionate about since my election to this place a couple of years ago, and that's the issue of civics education, particularly for younger Tasmanians. It's something I've been doing a bit of work on in my home state, engaging with students from various schools across the state. As I've stated previously, it's something I'm committed to doing my bit to assist in, in spreading the word about the importance of engagement in and understanding of our democratic institutions, state, federal and local; why it's important to take advantage of the ability to participate in democracy; the role of government; and what having your say can actually do. That is the great thing about democracy in this country. One of the things I've done in Tasmania is to sponsor a private scholarship for residents of a residential college in Hobart, Jane Franklin Hall, which is a great institution. That scholarship is aimed at supporting students who have an interest in governance, democracy and public administration. The funds that I contribute towards that go towards supporting the cost of living for students who want to do some work in this space. This year I was pleased to be able to award the scholarship to a young fellow by the name of Mr Perry Smith, who was awarded the scholarship because of his interest in politics and public administration. Perry has had a very positive experience. He's gained real insights, having served a small period of time in my office and participated in the work of an electorate office. As I'm sure all senators would agree, it's great to get people in to see what the offices of parliamentarians do and to get an understanding of the big issues we deal with—the things we come here to debate but also the issues we work with members of the community on so people understand exactly what the role of a parliamentarian is. I look forward to working with Perry into the future on the piece of work I've asked him to undertake, something I'll be talking about in this place a little later on. Seeing young people engaged in politics and in understanding the political process and the power that it has is something that, as I say, I'm very passionate about. It's my belief that civics education should be a part of every child's education, not just a tack-on and not just an elective that a teacher may or may not feel is important for their students to engage in. It is a bit ad hoc in Tasmania. There have been some classes that do it. Some schools have a great program of interaction and education in this space, but it's by no means across the board. I'm sure many of us have had an interaction with someone. You'll introduce yourself and say what you do, and they might ask, 'Well, what's a senator?' It's concerning when an Australian who's been voting for 20-odd years may not know what a senator is—that it's a member of the Australian parliament—or what they do. I think that, given we have this wonderful thing called a democracy where we can all have our say and have an influence over the outcome of an election in the interests of what we believe is right or wrong, we should be educating people about what they're voting on. Of course, civics education helps educate our future leaders about engagement, about understanding issues and working with communities, and about understanding the power of a place like this and the other place, or whichever form of civic institution they wish to be engaged with. Recently I had the good fortune and privilege of visiting two schools in Tasmania in the beautiful town of New Norfolk, just north of the city of Hobart. I was able to visit New Norfolk Primary School and Fairview Primary School, both schools that have civics engagement programs to varying degrees, in which I was pleased to be able to participate. I was pleased to come and talk to grade 5 and 6 students at New Norfolk Primary, as an extension to their civics education program, about the role of parliament, democracy and the history of our federation, and test them on their knowledge as well. I was impressed by the level of knowledge demonstrated in answer to many of those questions. It was also impressive to learn what issues were important to students in these schools. The issues raised were ones you would probably hear from older, voting-age adult Australians. They weren't about cartoons or comic books; they were issues such as a well-functioning health system, hospital waiting lists, a good standard of education, proper roads and highways, and law and order. It's not bad for a bunch of students who are nine-, 10- or 11-year-olds to identify issues like those as things they feel strongly about. Despite the fact that these students may not be as articulate or eloquent as someone who's 30, 40 or 50 years old, these students had a good handle on these important issues. I commend the school for having a civics education program to engage children on issues that are going to affect their futures, but it's also encouraging to see that households are taking these issues seriously. Dinner table conversations turn to issues like the ones the students identified. As I said, it's important because these children are our next generation of leaders and decision-makers. I can see that those students have a good handle on these issues, understand what needs to happen and have a great capacity to identify what's important to them. I thank the staff and the students I met with at New Norfolk Primary School for hosting me and engaging in civics education in this way. Following on from that my day only got better, because I went to Fairview Primary School, as I mentioned before, and was able to have a meeting with their student leadership group, generally focused on questions about the qualities of a good leader or a good representative. I wanted to understand what they believed the qualities of a good leader to be. They identified things like being an effective communicator, being able to listen and show empathy, and being a role model amongst your peers in your community by setting an example, caring and helping other people. While they were talking about those qualities in their context as student leaders, they also identified them as qualities that we as community leaders and as members of the Australian parliament should be emulating, and they are absolutely right. It was also a chance for them to ask a number of other questions about the role of a senator, how the Australian parliament works—and some personal questions: 'What does your family think about what you do? Do you see your kids?' One question caught me by surprise: 'Do you believe in unicorns?' They have challenged me to disprove that. I'm still working on it. Senator Urquhart 231199 What did you tell them? Senator DUNIAM 263418 I said that I remained to be convinced, Senator Urquhart, but we'll see. They've given me until the end of the year to get back to them on that one. There were questions about motivation: 'Why do you do what you do? Why do you engage?' That was the most interesting part of the conversation. I turned the question back on those student leaders at Fairview Primary: 'Why did you put your hands up to be student leaders? Why did you volunteer to be a leader of your year group or class?' It was interesting to understand their motivations. All of them fundamentally wanted to leave their school community, which has been a big part of their life for so long now, in a better place than when they arrived. They wanted to leave a project that would improve Fairview Primary for the year groups that come after them. I thought that was commendable. Senators or members often refer to similar motivations in first speeches or in interviews as to why they came to this place. Again, it's great to see young people highlighting what is effectively very selfless and community-minded motivation as the reason they would put their hands up to give up their lunchbreak to serve lunch to other kids, to come in early to help out with the breakfast club, to help out at the local nursing home, and things like that. It was wonderful to see that sort of selfless motivation. The student leadership group also talked about the wonderful project that they're doing for their year group, which I'm sure they'll be announcing to their peers in the near future. Again, it's about that legacy and making sure that the generations after them that come through that school have a better schooling experience. At the end of the day, for me, it is really about seeing an improved and broader application of civics education in Australian schools. I'm pleased to see what New Norfolk Primary and Fairview Primary are doing, and I thank and commend the students for their engagement. But I would love to see more of it, and I'm hoping I'll see more of it in Tasmanian primary schools in the near future. Music Industry, John Lennon Educational Tour Bus 33 13:25 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the current state of the Australian music industry and the general decline of interest in and support for new Australian music in this great country. I recently came across an article in the paper which featured the Australian Top 40 music chart. I have to confess that I haven't been across the charts since the days of Molly Meldrum and Countdown, so I decided to do a bit of research to see who some of these artists were and, I have to say, I was a bit surprised—in fact, I was quite shocked. Seventeen singles on the Australian Top 40 chart were from US rapper Post Malone. Upon having a closer look, I saw that only three artists out of the 40 were Australian: Kasey Chambers, Missy Higgins and the DMA'S. I thought to myself that that couldn't possibly be right. So I asked around and did some further research to try and understand why this is the case. I was horrified to find that most people who are in some way associated with the industry believe that lack of a collective reason to support new Australian music is at the heart of it. This may come as a bit of a shock to most of you in this place, but I don't have a musical bone in my body—I'm an old truckie after all, so that's fair enough! But I did grow up in the era of the hard rock pub bands of the seventies and the eighties. I was a long-haul truckie, driving between Perth and Darwin and to all ports in between for over 11 years. This meant that I had a heck of a lot of time on my hands, as I went through the years, to listen, firstly, to the radio, then to cassettes and then, in my later trucking years, to CDs. When I was in my truck, driving the length and breadth of this magnificent country, I used to think I could pull off a pretty good Bon Scott impersonation, and I still do—I might do it for you later on tonight! Back then, if there was a radio station in range, you could hear the likes of Skyhooks, Sherbet, Renee Geyer, AC/DC, John Paul Young, Marcia Hines and many, many other legends of the Australian music industry. As the hundreds of thousands of miles clocked up, there was also AC/DC, Hunters & Collectors, Australian Crawl, Rose Tattoo, Divinyls, INXS, Cold Chisel, The Angels, Men at Work, 1927, Kylie Minogue, Tina Arena and many, many more artists who contributed to the rich Aussie music heritage. As I travelled the country, I used to see posters advertising the performances of those bands and performers in towns across our nation. Many of them became household names. Those bands were part of the fabric of Australia. They went out to conquer the world alongside our sporting teams, businesses, arts and cultural acts of the seventies and the eighties. Sadly, we are not seeing that anymore. Why aren't we hearing and seeing acts to replenish those household names? Bands and solo artists have contributed to the Australian musical identity and the economy in an enormous manner over the last 50 years, and we cannot afford to lose that status on the world stage. I go back to the 17 singles from the US rapper versus three singles from Aussie artists on the Top 40 chart. It seems like the desire of all the corporate radio networks to expose any new Aussie music comes down to the competitiveness of the very much changed business in today's internet age, where music is delivered in many, many ways. As we sadly have no Countdown anymore, maybe the government can give our artists a radio station that will play their music 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whether they be 16 or 60, regardless of their music styles. As all the corporate radio companies are calling out right now for licensing fee relief, I've got a suggestion for the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield. How about you provide that on the proviso that they must and must only play new Australian music? Think about that. The more you play, the less you pay. I bet London to a brick that that'll get the money men loving Aussie music again. I'm going to take this opportunity to call on all Australians to take a minute to email or call your local member of parliament to tell them, 'We want you to support our Aussie artists and new Aussie music.' The challenge goes out to Australia. Let our music and talent lead us to another great era for the Australian music industry. I'm going to now move to my other favourite topic and I want to share with the chamber in the remaining minutes that I have an exciting project I have been working on for well over 18 months now. I had the opportunity through a very dear friend of mine, Mr Robbie Williams in Perth, a legend of the Australian music industry that goes back to the '70s with Michael Chugg, Michael Gudinski and others. Robbie asked me if I had heard of the John Lennon Educational Tour Bus, to which I replied, 'Absolutely not.' Robbie suggested I should probably Google it and meet him down at the Leopold Hotel in Bicton Sunday arvo at two o'clock for a cold one. And I did. This bus is an unbelievable state-of-the-art, not-for-profit mobile recording studio. But that's just the start of it. I went to New York. It was arranged that I could meet up with the CEO and co-founder, Mr Brian Rothschild. I went to Kaufman Astoria Studios in New York. I saw the bus. I got on the bus. I met with students who were on the bus playing their music. The whole concept is that schoolkids can get on the bus when the bus gets to their school. They can write a song, they can write stories and they can record—there are all the musical instruments there—and by two o'clock in the afternoon it's up on YouTube and the whole world can see what these kids have done. Brian gave me a bit of a surprise, because he had one Yoko Ono Lennon waiting. She wasn't waiting for me—she was doing an interview—but I happened to be out the front like a schoolkid waiting to meet the great Yoko, and I did. I asked Yoko, if we could get a bus to Australia, if she would launch it. So my fingers are crossed that we can get this darn bus built. Talk has gone on too long now; it's time to deliver. It will prick your ears—and a lot of people in this place know about it because I haven't shut up about it—to hear that it will tour Australia. There is a budget put together, and we're off and running. I have recruited these musical legends Michael Chugg, Michael Gudinski and Mark Pope—and Mark's resume is as long as Chuggie's and as long as Michael's—to work with us. But I also thought, 'I need to do this properly and I need to do it where it is apolitical and can deliver the best outcome for our kids in rural and regional Australia, giving our kids the opportunity to tell their stories, record their music, write their songs and anything else that goes with it.' That's before I start on cultural advantages that will come with this as well. So we've joined up with another legend—well, legend in his own lunchbox, but I say that quietly because he had a crack at me yesterday!—in Senator Barry O'Sullivan. I wanted to make this across the chamber. I went to Senator O'Sullivan because he is rural. I know his commitment to kids goes without saying. Senator O'Sullivan and I are working on this with Michael Chugg, Michael Gudinski, Mark Pope and, of course, Brian Rothschild in the US. I will have a lot more to say about the John Lennon Educational Tour Bus. I have put the proposal wide in this building. All we're asking for is a measly sum of money to build this magnificent project. We don't want anything else. The philanthropic and business worlds will fund this. There's a lot of talk going on. But I am putting the plea to the government for the price to build this bus, to get it rolling on the highways and the byways of Australia and to roll it out to our rural and regional communities to give the kids who live outside the cities a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get on this state-of-the-art bus and write, play and record their music. I have spent many, many days rolling through the Kimberley showing it to the kids—Aboriginal kids and non-Aboriginal kids. How they would love to have a bus like this coming through their communities; it's overwhelming. I have not had one negative word. So, on that, my plea is out there to the government to get behind Senator O'Sullivan and me and to get behind our music legends, who are putting their hard-earned time into this project for free because they are passionate about it. As I said in the contribution that I made earlier: we cannot let the Australian music industry die. This is what we have done. For people of my ilk, it is criminal that we don't have Countdown for Australian music. Department of Veterans' Affairs 35 13:35 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I want to go back to question time yesterday when I put several questions to defence minister Payne, representing the latest Minister for Veterans' Affair, Darren Chester. He is probably the fourth or fifth in as many years. My question concerned the case of former paratrooper Martin Rollins. He withdrew from the military after suffering a spinal injury. I made the point that, as an election promise, I would not neglect country Victoria. So I make frequent trips to regional and rural areas to talk to the mayors, councillors and the local police officers, and I always make a point of going to the RSL club in time for The Ode and to talk to returned diggers. Recently, I did a Q&A with 50 veterans at the Ballarat RSL and heard some horror stories, not about what happened overseas, not about what happened in the war zones where they put their lives on the line for their country, but about what happened after they got home, after they got back here. I told them the brutal truth about the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I told them they had to regard the DVA as the enemy, because it treats you as the enemy. The case of former paratrooper Martin Rollins is, sadly, a classic case; it's not an unusual one. This shameful episode over how this serviceman was treated was featured on the ABC's 7.30 Report the other night. They story claimed that DVA deliberately deleted an incapacity policy for self-employed vets so that the pen-pushers could deny the compensation claim of veteran Rollins, who had to retire as a paratrooper after damaging his spine. Yesterday, in question time, Senator Payne said: … the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself denies the specific allegation that it removed or cancelled policies to deny veterans their lawful entitlements, and that was one of the aspects which was raised in the program. Well, somebody is telling porkies. Somebody in the department has misled Minister Payne. I don't say that lightly, because I have proof. Between 2009 and 2010, Martin Rollins's lawyer wrote to the DVA eight times. The lawyer wanted his case resolved on the basis of the then current policy outlined in what is known as the Incapacity Handbook. After those eight letters, on 16 August, an internal email from Veterans' Affairs—an incriminating, self-damning email, which I have seen—was widely distributed. The email said: 'Following discussions with the business area, 12 July 2010, the Incapacity Handbook paragraph 32.3.5 has been amended to remove any reliance that Rollins or his representative could place on it for the purpose of his outstanding claim.' I have not only a copy of that email but the cc'd list. It was sent on 16 August and cc'd in with a DVA chief operating officer, the executive PA to the DVA Secretary, the national director of the legal section, the national director of DVA policy, one senior lawyer and, most telling, the manager of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service. If the policy hadn't been 'removed' or 'cancelled', as the minister claimed in question time yesterday, why such a wide distribution list? It proves, despite the denial the department gave the defence minister for question time, that they did tamper with the Incapacity Handbook to thwart Mr Rollins's legitimate claim. Not only did they tactically delete part of the policy that would have helped the ex-serviceman but it gets worse. Over 10 years the DVA engaged three external law firms, the Government Solicitor and a forensic accountant to fight Martin Rollins's claim. You have to ask: how much did it cost the taxpayer to persecute and destroy the quality of life of a man whose only crime is that he served his country? In fact, during one meeting Mr Rollins asked one of these government outside lawyers how much they thought they'd been paid since it all started. He asked if it was over $100,000. They responded, 'Of course—probably much more.' Speaking of emails again, an email discovered by Rollins through FOI in 2008 openly called Mr Rollins's incapacity 'debatable', suggesting that he could have been faking it and feigning injury. The man has a shattered L5 disc in his back. Centrelink did the same calculation as the veterans' affairs department, and they came to the conclusion that Rollins was entitled to financial assistance based on his incapacity. It took them just 14 days in July 2010. Centrelink told Rollins they were baffled that his case was taking so long at Veterans' Affairs. This treatment of a struggling ex-serviceman, in my view, was despicable and unconscionable. For the DVA to be still trying to pull the wool over a defence minister's eyes and trying to publicly whitewash despicable, vengeful behaviour, I believe, is truly appalling. Sometimes you wonder if public servants in that department even know that the V in DVA stands for 'veterans'. As I told those veterans in Ballarat, to get anywhere you must treat the DVA as the enemy, because they regard you as the enemy. I have a final indicative point: Martin Rollins didn't want this to become a story. He says 'I was just incapacitated. I was just reaching out for help.' And the DVA was not there. James Cook University, Australian National University 36 13:42 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Freedom is a basic principle of the political party I support, the Liberal National Party of Queensland. It is also an underlying principle of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party. We believe in freedom, in individual freedom, in self-responsibility, in the family and in support for the disadvantaged. Freedom is one of our underlying basic tenets. I thought freedom was also a basic core value of universities around the world. I thought universities welcomed differences of opinion, debate and views that may not be popular and which may not be the majority views. I thought they welcomed different views. So I have been distressed over the last year about a university which I always praise and which I call 'my' university, although I was never able to afford to go there or clever enough to get a scholarship there back in the early days. That's James Cook University in North Queensland, which has done a wonderful job in many fields. It has wonderful campuses in Townsville, Cairns and Singapore, and generally it is a university I support very strongly and enthusiastically. But I have to say that I have been concerned at the way James Cook University has treated a couple of academics who didn't agree with the normal view accepted by perhaps the majority of scientists on climate change and on the Great Barrier Reef. I am clearly not a scientist, and I can't go into the scientific differences, but I did appreciate that there were different views from two very distinguished scientists, the late Professor Bob Carter and Professor Peter Ridd. Professor Carter was an adjunct professor at the university and had a different view on climate change, and he, to my way of seeing the issue, was forced out of James Cook University because he had a view that didn't fit the norm of most scientists. I spoke to Professor Carter before his death. His basic principle, his basic argument, was about accepting that climate change is happening and we should be focusing our attention not on more research on why it happened but on rehabilitation—in dealing with the impacts of climate change. He is a very sensible man, a very learned scientist, in my view, but he effectively was forced out of James Cook University. Then there is Professor Peter Ridd, who has a different view on the Great Barrier Reef, a view I might say that I, as a non-scientist, share, because I have lived adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef all of my life. I have to say that most of the constituents along the Great Barrier Reef that I represent also agree with Professor Peter Ridd, not from a scientific viewpoint but from their own observations over a lifetime. Yet, Professor Ridd was eventually sacked by James Cook University. I wrote to the learned vice-chancellor, Professor Sandra Harding—a good friend of mine—on 30 August last year expressing my concerns about what I understood to be the situation relating to Professor Ridd. As I indicated in that letter to Professor Harding, I didn't have all of the facts, but it seemed to me that this was a case of disciplining a scientist who didn't agree with other scientists at JCU and at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Professor Harding wrote back to me and explained that that wasn't the reason Professor Ridd was being disciplined. It was about personal behaviour and not questioning the veracity of another researcher's science. According to news reports he did make some comments about work done by Professor Terry Hughes from James Cook University, who is always out there following, or perhaps leading on, the Greens political party lines on all of the horrors that are happening on the Great Barrier Reef, when other researchers, like Professor Ridd, and people who are on the reef all the time, like the constituents I serve, would have thought that Professor Hughes's comments were slightly over the top, to put it politely. Nevertheless, Peter Ridd has now separated from the university and I think it is a great shame that, whether or not it is true, the perception is that James Cook University, which I love and support all the time, has disciplined two distinguished scientists because they didn't agree with the mob-thought on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. As Peter McCutcheon said in an interview on the ABC, 'The former professor's crime was to speak disparagingly of his colleagues, who found that the Great Barrier Reef was in peril because of farming run-off and climate change.' I have to say that it is strange to be a bedfellow of the National Tertiary Education Union, but I agree with Mr Andrew Bonnell from the union, who said: 'The fundamental issue is that academic freedom is indivisible and you can't have academic freedom for people you agree with and not for people you disagree with.' Peter Ridd was asked whether his view was a minority view and he correctly said, 'Yes, absolutely it is, but science isn't a democracy. It is not the most votes; it is who has got the evidence.' Peter Ridd's complaint about some scientific work on the Great Barrier Reef is that it is not peer reviewed and not properly peer reviewed. He is concerned, as he said in a note to me, that his focus was on calling for better quality assurance for any science upon which the government based big spending decisions. 'Presently, so much of this science is never properly checked, despite what science organisations may claim to the contrary. The fact that they do not accept that we have a quality problem is worse than the bad science they often produce.' For those comments Professor Ridd is no longer there. I must say that I don't agree with everything that Professor Ridd said. In fact, he criticises, in some media outlets, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which I think is a quality organisation of very, very good scientists, and my understanding, limited as it is, is that on many issues they don't altogether disagree with Professor Ridd. So I'm very disappointed that the university I love and support has been tagged as being anti freedom to express these views. In the short time left available to me, I also want to mention the Australian National University and the way they've handled the bequest of money to set up a degree course in Western civilisation. The ridiculous comments we've had in relation to the rejection by ANU of that bequest are quite frightening. It was apparently rejected by ANU—and, of course, the chancellor there is Gary Evans, the former federal Labor minister, who, when he was here, called himself Gareth Evans—who, along with the Australian National University Students Association and the National Tertiary Education Union, said the program would push a racist or radically conservative agenda. Well, even if it did, you'd think that in a university they'd be able to handle that and have arguments against it. Of course, as the organisation looking after that bequest indicated, this wasn't about any sort of racist issue on Western civilisation but about our modern society and how we should look to the foundations of our society. I conclude by quoting the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, who said: It is essential that universities are not only open to but enthusiastic about the study of the values that helped to create both them and the modern society in which we now enjoy unparalleled opportunities. I hope that other universities in discussions with the Ramsay Centre resist ill-informed or politically correct objections and find a way to ensure this generous bequest enables valuable study into the foundations of our society. Child Care, Early Childhood Education 37 13:52 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I want to use my time in senators' statements for the very practical purpose of alerting working families who rely on child care that the system is about to change and their payments may well be at risk. To anybody listening, I want to place on record my serious concerns about the Turnbull government's changes to our childcare system. Putting aside the fact that thousands of vulnerable Australians will be worse off after 1 July—and I'll come back to that—Labor is worried that the way in which the changes are being implemented will cause hardship for families around the country. The onus has been placed squarely on parents and caregivers to contact Centrelink to transition to the new system, and the government has largely left it to childcare centres to follow up with families and support them through the transition. Unfortunately, despite the good work of thousands of proactive centres across Australia, we know that hundreds of thousands of families are yet to complete the new paperwork. The minister tried to dress up these numbers in this place yesterday, talking about how many families have signed up, but he failed to mention that 23 per cent of families, or around 275,000—that's around one in four—are yet to sign up and the deadline is imminent. What does this mean for families? Parents and caregivers who have not yet transitioned should urgently visit the my.gov.au website or visit a local Centrelink office. Unfortunately, those who fail to complete the new paperwork risk losing their subsidies from 1 July. Of course, it will be the childcare facilities who have to pick up the pieces, dealing with confused and anxious families—families who can't afford to pay their bills and may not understand why—or, worse, dealing with families who don't realise their subsidy has been cut until their childcare fees are direct debited that week, families who live pay cheque to pay cheque, where every dollar counts. Without a subsidy, those families may see their grocery money disappear and be left with literally nothing to live on. I'm very worried about the impact of these changes on families. I don't believe the government have done enough to support families through this transition. As I said, they've essentially left it to childcare operators to tell families about the changes, and we've heard nothing from the government on how long it will take Centrelink to process each family's transition. Given the blowout in Centrelink payment processing times, the wait times on phone calls and the volumes of calls that simply go unanswered, I am not brimming with confidence about families getting timely results from Centrelink under a coalition government ever. I return now to the issue of families that will be disadvantaged by the Turnbull government's changes. Under these changes, access to early childhood education will be cut for around one in four families across the country. Access will be cut for over 62,000 families in Queensland alone. Amanda Rishworth, Labor's shadow minister for early childhood education and development, was in Queensland recently, and I thank her for visiting my duty electorate of Petrie. Unfortunately, I was required in Canberra for estimates that week, so I sent my apologies to the Goodstart Early Learning centre in Rothwell. I thank them very much for hosting the shadow minister and our federal Labor candidate for Petrie, Corinne Mulholland. I look forward to visiting one of the great Goodstart centres across Petrie at another time in the future, but I know Corinne Mulholland has been very active in campaigning against these Liberal and National cuts, and she's out there every day talking with local mums and dads about the affordability and accessibility of our childcare system, while the Liberal member for Petrie stays silent on the issue. Labor has a very proud record when it comes to supporting parents back into the workforce and advancing early childhood education. We have a proud record of making child care more affordable to parents and caregivers. It was the Whitlam government who took on the implementation of the Child Care Act 1972, and in 1974 the Whitlam government broadened funding to include preschools and childcare support for all families, not just for the poor. I note the assertions by Brennan and Wales and by Brennan and Adamson quoted by Sumsion et al in an article in the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood in December 2013: Both the Act and the Whitlam era … have been identified as a 'turning point' in childcare politics … Then, from 1983 to 1987 under the Hawke Labor government, the Commonwealth worked with states and territories to expand the childcare system, together with funding capital development and around 20,000 places. In 1984 childcare assistance was introduced and a more needs-based planning approach to places adopted. In 1986 Labor put caps on fees that facilities could charge, and in 1988 the National Childcare Strategy was announced, aimed at providing an extra 30,000 childcare places. In our last term of government we raised the cap on the childcare rebate, enabling more parents and caregivers to participate more fully in the workforce without being penalised by fees and facilitating more time for parents to look for work or study. I am also proud of the fact that Labor works hand in hand with the union movement to fight for fairer wages and good conditions for early childhood workers and educators. I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts by the Big Steps campaign run by United Voice, pushing for fair pay for fair work by workers in childcare facilities across the country. My wife re-entered the workforce when our kids were young. As a father of four, I note that we could not have achieved all that we have achieved in our family without the support of early childhood educators. We entrust our children to these workers in some of their most formative developmental years. We know the transformative power that education—even just regular reading—provides for our children. Labor recognises that quality early education and care can only be provided by a skilled, professional and well-paid workforce. We don't think it is right that those who educate our youngest minds earn less than half the national average wage. In conclusion, right now big-business profits are hitting record highs, but workers' wages are standing still. Inequality is increasing, and the gender gap has never been more obvious. The ABC reported earlier this month that, for the first time in recorded history, less than half of all working Australians have a permanent full-time job with leave entitlements. Cost-of-living pressures are hurting families, and Labor recognises that it can be an incredibly difficult decision for families weighing up the pros and cons of returning to work and putting a child into care. We have heard information about effective marginal tax rates in the past couple of weeks in the debate about personal income tax cuts. We have heard about how the cost of child care contributes to effective marginal tax rates and can act as a significant disincentive to parents re-entering the workforce. Yet this government does nothing to address these issues, and it has form when it comes to neglecting issues facing our early education workforce. In conclusion: the government have done a number of things. They've allowed the Early Years Workforce Strategy to expire, abolished the Long Day Care Professional Development Program and ended funding for professional support coordinators. Now they're cutting access to early childhood education and care for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable parents and children in the country. The last thing we should do for these families is further entrench the cycle of disadvantage, but that's exactly what the Liberals and Nationals are doing. Now more than ever we need a federal Labor government to support families and children by getting the policy settings right. Labor will make sure that early childhood education takes priority over tax cuts to big business. Labor will make sure our educators and our workers are valued. Labor will ensure that our childcare system supports our most vulnerable children and families to reap the benefits that we know early childhood education can offer. In closing, I just want to remind people to go to the my.gov.au website or visit their local Centrelink office. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! We will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 39 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 39 13:59 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question without notice is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Today, Telstra workers and their families have been devastated by the announcement that Telstra will shed 8,000 jobs over the next three years. When did the government first become aware of Telstra's plan to cut 8,000 jobs, and what measures is the government putting in place to assist the 8,000 workers and their families? 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Carr, it is an absolute delight to hear from you! I can only speak as to when I was informed, and it was late last night. The decision by Telstra to restructure its workforce over the next three years is a disappointing one for those affected by it, but ultimately it is a commercial decision for Telstra. The government recognises the imperative of helping individuals and communities adapt to change. When job losses occur, our first concern is for the workers and their families who are affected by the job losses. I have spoken to Telstra, as I understand has the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications, and I understand that a number of the job losses will be through voluntary redundancies. The government is pleased to see that Telstra will establish a $50 million transition program to assist its workers who will lose their jobs, or need to reskill, over the next three years as part of Telstra's restructure. Telstra recognises the importance of supporting its skilled and knowledgeable workforce as they transition to new jobs. The government has a number of measures to assist displaced workers to transition and return to the workplace. These include employment assistance through jobactive for eligible displaced workers, including funds to assist with retraining, wage subsidies and, if needed, relocation assistance. We also have support through our vocational education and training system. We also have income support and financial counselling services provided by the Department of Human Services. Australia's healthy economy, social safety nets and strength in education and skills training gives us— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a supplementary question. 14:02 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Given that the government's cut all those social service measures, why is this government more focused on giving a banker from Rose Bay a $5,000-a-year tax cut in six years time than protecting the jobs of Australian workers? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Carr, we're not. What this side of the chamber is focused on is building a stronger economy. This side of the chamber is focused on building a stronger economy. We are focused on ensuring that our businesses have the best possible policy environment in which to prosper and grow. Those of us on this side of the chamber know that, when a business is able to prosper and grow, that business will create jobs for Australians. But I will also put on the record the words of the Prime Minister. He has stated: 'While this news is disappointing, it once again highlights that Australian businesses are facing intense competition. That's why it is absolutely critical that the government continues to back business to invest and create jobs. It's why lower business taxes are vital to ensuring Australian businesses remain competitive on the global stage.' We will back business to grow and create more jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, final supplementary question. 14:04 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Minister, you speak of the uncertainty of the future facing workers. I'd ask you this: why is the coalition government making it harder for Australians to look to education and train themselves for the jobs of the future by cutting $2.2 billion from Australian universities and around $3 billion from vocational education? Doesn't this just show how arrogant and out of touch this Prime Minister is when the best he can do— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q I will ask the minister to address the part of the question that she got through. 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Carr. To quote a phrase, 'Yet another lot of Labor lies.' Senator Carr, you are completely wrong in what you have stated. This government is focused on backing our businesses, because, as we know, when we back our businesses—and we can do that through tax cuts—our businesses will reinvest that money back into themselves, and they will prosper and they will grow. This government has a good record of job creation. If we look at just over the last 12 months, in excess of 178,000 full-time jobs were created because of the policy settings of the Turnbull government. Compare that to the final 12 months of the former Labor government. You'd never know, would you, colleagues, that the economy shed almost 17,000 full-time jobs under the policies that those on the other side put in place. Infrastructure 40 14:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland It's evident after yesterday's performance that the government tacticians have established the potency of the O'Sullivan-Scullion team! The PRESIDENT I0Q Turn to the question, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 It is with great pleasure that I ask the first question for the government today to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on how the coalition government is creating jobs and stimulating economic growth through its record investment in infrastructure? 14:06 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I certainly can. This year's budget continues the coalition government's record investment in nation-building infrastructure projects, in roads, in rail and in airports. These projects are job-creating superchargers to the economy. We're going to take Australians off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of work. The coalition government is investing $75 billion in a decade-long pipeline of transport infrastructure. Inland Rail and the Western Sydney Airport are the sorts of nation-changing, family-opportunity-providing infrastructure projects that have not been attempted before. These new investments will collectively support around 50,000 direct and indirect jobs, particularly in regional and rural areas. People in regional and remote areas are going to be beneficiaries of the $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, which is going to lift productivity on our regional freight roads. We're also investing an additional $160 million in the Outback Way, making it a total commitment of $330 million to the project. This is a decade-long pipeline of investment, giving certainty to businesses. They know what they're looking forward to. With this investment, the economy has created over 100,000 jobs in the last year. That's 1,100 jobs a day, 1,100 more families with a principal breadwinner. To do this, of course, and as I indicated yesterday, we have to get the budget back under control. The budget is returning to surplus next year. It's taken us five years to do it, just as the Howard government had to contend with Labor mess before we saw unprecedented economic growth. This government is getting the budget under control. As we continue to strengthen our budget position, we can invest in Australian families. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question. 14:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland That's good news, coast to coast. Can the minister advise the Senate on the impact of this infrastructure investment in my home state of Queensland? 14:08 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank Senator O'Sullivan for that question and I acknowledge what a strong advocate he's been for these important infrastructure projects. They are going to relieve congestion, grow the region and connect businesses—something that those opposite may not understand and clearly haven't done anything about in the past. We're investing $15.5 billion in funding transport infrastructure projects in Queensland and $5.2 billion in major projects in Queensland, including $1 billion for the upgrade of two sections of the M1 Pacific Motorway, from Varsity Lakes to Tugun and Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill; $390 million for the Beerburrum to Nambour Rail Upgrade, which we're still waiting on the Queensland government to match; $300 million for the Brisbane Metro project; and an additional $3.3 billion for projects on the Bruce Highway to improve safety and create jobs. There is $223 million for 10 projects in Queensland and $56 million for the North Australia Program. All of this is contributing to the Australian economy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 14:09 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Can the minister provide details about any other infrastructure investments in my home state of Queensland and explain how these are supporting local jobs, reducing congestion and improving the quality of life for all Queenslanders? 14:10 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory The voters in Longman have a very real choice to make in the upcoming by-election. There's only one party you can trust to keep the budget under control. If the budget isn't under control, you can't make the sorts of investments in infrastructure and job creation that we're making. The Deception Bay Road interchange upgrade, which the people of Longman have been calling for, can be delivered because we've done such a great job of getting the budget under control so we can invest in such important infrastructure projects. The $120 million Commonwealth commitment to a six-lane overpass is going to increase safety, reduce travel times and connect Longman with other parts of Queensland. It is going to bring prosperity to Longman. This is part of the coalition's record $10 billion commitment to communities along the Bruce Highway. The people of Longman will benefit from the $1.4 billion Pine River to Caloundra Road Interchange upgrade. They could never have benefited if the coalition hadn't got the budget under control so they could invest in the people of Longman. (Time expired) Income Tax 41 14:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In question time yesterday the Prime Minister's advice to a 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie who will be only $10 a week better off under his government's personal income tax plan was, 'Get a better job'. Why does the Prime Minister think that an investment banker from Rose Bay is better than an aged-care worker from Burnie? 14:11 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Let me say at the outset that that is a misrepresentation of what the Prime Minister said. Under our long-term plan to provide income tax relief for families a 60-year-old aged care worker in Tasmania will in fact get a tax cut before anybody else. The second thing I would say is that, on this side of the chamber, we have the great aspiration that all Australians of any age in any profession should have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Not only do we want to leave them with more of their own money by providing them with a tax cut now but we also want them to have the incentive to pursue a career, get ahead and pursue other job opportunities. We are not as ageist as the Labor Party, who suggest that somebody at 60 years of age is unable to go into a better-paid job if that is what they want to do. We want anyone who is working hard in a job they enjoy to have more of their own money. We don't want them to go backwards as a result of bracket creep. We don't want them to be pushed into higher income tax brackets because of inflation. That is why we are pursuing our long-term plan for income tax relief, but we also want to ensure that all working Australians of any age have the right incentive, the right encouragement and the right reward for effort so they have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question. 14:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Is the only reason that the Prime Minister is giving investment bankers a tax cut 13 times bigger than that for aged-care workers that he thinks they have better jobs? 14:13 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We've gone through this in this chamber for some time. The government is prioritising income tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. Somebody on $30,000 a year will get an 8.3 per cent tax cut. Someone on $200,000 a year will get a 0.2 per cent tax cut in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22. Senator Wong 00AOU High income earners get 60 per cent of the tax cuts. Senator CORMANN HDA Part of this politics of envy, socialist agenda that the current leader of the Labor Party, Senator Wong, is running is this attack on the undeserving rich. The top 20 per cent of income earners in Australia pay 60 per cent of income tax. When this plan is legislated in full by 2024-25, the top 20 per cent of income earners will still pay 60 per cent of income tax revenue generated. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question. 14:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Given that the Prime Minister thinks that low- and middle-income earners just haven't bothered to get a better job, is it any wonder that his arrogant and out-of-touch government is holding tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners this year hostage to tax cuts for the top 20 per cent of earners in six years time? 14:14 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I completely and utterly reject the premise of that question. That is not what the Prime Minister thinks. The Prime Minister has great optimism and great aspiration for all working Australians. The Prime Minister and every single member of his team—every single Liberal-National member and senator—wants all Australians, today and into the future, to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. We thank those senators on the crossbench who share our aspiration for the Australian people. We want to ensure that every Australian, today and into the future, has the best possible opportunity to get ahead. That is why we want them to be able to keep more of their own money. That is why we want to ensure that the tax system doesn't conspire against them. That is why we want to ensure that they don't go backwards, because you want to keep income taxes high and you want to stop us from addressing bracket creep. You know that bracket creep is not only a drag on growth but it actually reduces people's purchasing power in real terms. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 42 14:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to Senator Fifield representing the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, I refer you to the case of a 63-year-old Hazara man who sought asylum in Australia and is currently being held by your government on Nauru. This man is currently dying of lung cancer and needs palliative care which cannot be provided in Nauru. Why is it that your government is refusing to allow this man, who is dying as we speak, to receive the palliative care that he so desperately needs in Australia? 14:16 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator McKim. I don't have before me details on the particular situation to which you're referring. 14:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Given it's been quite widely reported in the media, that surprises me, Minister. Can you confirm that your government has offered, in fact, to transfer this man to— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, please pause. I'm going to insist that I can hear the questions for inevitable points of order. Senator McKIM JKM Can you confirm that your government has offered to transfer the man to Taiwan, where the AMA notes: There is no Hazara community… he has no friends or family there, no-one to translate from his language, and no-one to perform the Shia Muslim rituals after his death. Why do you want this man to die lonely and unsupported? (Time expired) Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 You disgusting grub! Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, there were a number of insults going around the chamber, but I did not hear the word you just used. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I didn't hear it. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I'm reluctant to have to do it but the word was used by Senator Macdonald, as he regularly does. I ask him to withdraw it. Do you want me to repeat it? The PRESIDENT I0Q For the operation of the chamber, Senator Macdonald, and to continue question time, I'll ask you to withdraw that. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 If 'grub' is unparliamentary—and I must say I never knew that, after my time here—I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will come back to the chamber with advice on that word. Senator Hinch, did you have a point of order? Senator Hinch 2O4 It was used at this end of the chamber during that exchange. The PRESIDENT I0Q Are you asking for someone to withdraw? Senator Hinch 2O4 If Senator Macdonald has to withdraw, I would ask Senator McKim to withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM I withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fifield, I will ask you to answer the part of the question which was asked during the time limit. 14:19 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Senator McKim's question is based on an appalling and false assumption, which I reject. As I indicated before, I'm not aware of the particular case to which Senator McKim refers. Regardless, it is not the practice to comment on individual and specific cases. Medical transfer decisions occur on a case-by-case basis according to clinical need, in consultation with the contracted health services provider and the government of Nauru. Australia has provided significant funding and support over a number of years to improve the health infrastructure in Nauru, but that is as far as I can take this. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a final supplementary question. 14:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This man will die lonely and unsupported because of your government. Minister, given your government's shameful record of ripping refugee families apart, when you look at the images of children being ripped apart from their parents and thrown into cages in the US, do you have pride that your policies are now being imitated overseas? 14:20 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I am very pleased that this government has put in place border protection policies which have effectively resulted in the people-smuggling business being put out of business when it comes to seeking to promise people that they can have particular immigration outcomes in Australia if they pay and put themselves in harm's way courtesy of the people smuggler. I'm very pleased that that trade is effectively out of business. We've got to make sure that that trade remains out of business, and that can be secured by ensuring that we maintain the effort, which we are under this government, and that we do not give the opportunity to others in this place who would seek to dismantle those arrangements and see the people smugglers back in business and people put in harm's way. Space Industry 43 14:21 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Minister Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the government's announcement in the budget on investing in Australia's civil space industry? 14:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Colbeck for his question. As Australians would know, the Turnbull government is creating a stronger economy. That's what we're all about. This ensures we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, provide income tax relief and bring the budget back to balance. Since we were elected in September 2013, the economy under this government has now created in excess of one million jobs. But we know that there is still more to do, and that is why the Turnbull government is focused on the creation of new growth industries. For the first time in Australia's history, the government is establishing a national space agency which will officially commence in less than two weeks. The global space economy is worth around US$345 billion. Australia's share currently is approximately 0.8 per cent of that. Australia, however, has immense capabilities when it comes to space-related sectors. We lead the world in automated mining and precision agriculture. We have excellent capability in advanced manufacturing, including in satellites, and we're recognised for our expertise in satellite navigation, data analysis and research. But what we've lacked to date is a single body that coordinates our domestic activity but also provides a pathway to international participation. We are creating such a body. With access to the global space economy that the agency will facilitate, it is estimated that Australia can triple the size of our current domestic industry to approximately $12 billion by 2030 and create up to 20,000 new jobs for Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a supplementary question. 14:23 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania What commercial opportunities will this industry provide to create jobs for Australians? 14:23 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The Space Agency will now enable our businesses to participate in the world's biggest space missions and projects, and it will encourage more private investment in Australia's space industry. It's a fact not recognised by some that, since the 1950s space race, the space industry itself has totally transformed. What was once strictly the domain of government is now a flourishing private market with far lower barriers to entry. The global market is now filled with businesses: large businesses and small businesses but especially those dealing with satellite technology, which is a particular strength of Australia's. The transformation of the space economy and the opportunities that this transformation presents for Australians are why the Turnbull government has created the Australian Space Agency. Our industries already have the requisite capabilities. It now means that they can participate on the global stage and create jobs for Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a final supplementary question. 14:24 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Why is it important to focus on job creation and providing direct benefits to Australians? 14:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition government understands that every business that is given the tools to grow is a business that creates more jobs for Australians. Our investment in Australian space industry jobs is another example of how we are stimulating businesses to grow and create more jobs. Like so many, I have been encouraged by the tremendous response the announcement of Australia's space agency has received. Last week I met with the head of space systems at Airbus. This is what he had to say: 'Australia's investment is allowing the country to grow and take advantage of the talented space industry which has made Australia's space economy the fastest growing on the planet.' And Christyl Johnson, the deputy director of technology and research at NASA, had said, 'We are allowing Australians to step up and join NASA's activities on the global stage.' This is an investment that will transform the industry landscape in Australia and create new jobs for generations to come. Defence Procurement 44 14:26 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence and concerns the nationally important Future Submarine project. Is it not the case that, at estimates, your department testified that the design and build of 12 submarines by Naval Group will cost the taxpayer $50 billion on a constant price basis? What assurances can the minister give to the Senate that the acquisition cost of the Future Submarines will be no more than $50 billion? And what measures are in place to try to reduce the cost of that figure if possible? 14:26 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Patrick for his question and some broad advance notice of the interest. We did discuss at estimates the Future Submarine program, in broad terms, and some commentary around that. I note that we are doubling the size of Australia's submarine fleet, and I do refute much of the commentary that has been made on this matter. When we explained it at Senate estimates we talked about the 2016 Integrated Investment Program, which the Prime Minister and I released in February of that year, which stated that the acquisition cost of the Future Submarine capability is estimated at greater than $50 billion out turned. As has been explained, the current estimate is $50 billion in constant dollars. Self-evidently, particularly given the strength of the Australian dollar, of the Australian economy, if you out-turn $50 billion in today's dollars it will be greater than $50 billion. I also want to note that the acquisition costs for the Future Submarine include much more than the design and construction of the submarine itself. As well as the design and construction of a fleet of 12 submarines, doubling the size, it includes the cost of designing and integrating the combat system into the 12 submarines, the investment in science and technology that will be required, the delivery of logistics support that will be required, and the design and construction of the submarine yard and the other land based facilities that will be required to support it, which I note are at Osborne in South Australia, which one presumes Senator Patrick welcomes. The initial estimate of the costs as set out in the IIP I have explained to the chamber, and I'm of course happy to take Senator Patrick's further questions. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a supplementary question. 14:28 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Is it not the case that on 29 February 2016, after the CP had closed but before any decision had been made, the German submarine builder ThyssenKrupp wrote to you reaffirming their offer for the design and construction of 12 one-hundred-per-cent-Australian-built Future Submarines? And is it not the case that their offer was—and I quote from the letter—'a fixed maximum cost of no more than $20 billion for the project'? 14:29 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not going to go into the details of correspondence between me as Minister for Defence and defence contractors of that nature, because the costs that were offered in the competitive evaluation process are commercially sensitive. I don't intend to release them publicly. I don't intend to undermine our own reputation as a credible and trustworthy customer. In any case, both the acquisition and sustainment cost estimates for the Future Submarine program will, of course, continue to be refined as the design of the Future Submarine continues. It's the case that more accurate estimates will become available after the critical design review, and that is scheduled to take place in 2022. It is important to note that, given we are making a very significant investment in defence capability over the next decade, business needs to be confident that as government ensures it gets the best deal for taxpayers— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question. 14:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia The difference between $20 billion and $50 billion is not completely explained by the additional items that you added. Indeed, the weapons systems have an extra $5 billion to $6 billion line item in the integrated investment plan. So I'm just wondering if you could give us some idea of what capability difference you got for the extra $30 billion, or thereabouts, and, indeed, how you went about considering the opportunity cost to other elements of the defence budget or the budget in general of $30 billion— (Time expired) 14:30 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Patrick for his question. As we indicated in the defence white paper and as we set out in the Integrated Investment Program, we made a very careful assessment through a force structure review process and the preparation of the defence white paper of the capability that needed to be acquired to ensure the Australian Defence Force is equipped to do the job we ask them to do. In naval capability there was a significant challenge, as Senator Patrick will be aware, because no work had been done on that. Not one single order had been placed and not one single vessel had been commissioned for the entire term of the previous Labor government. So we had a very significant task ahead of us. In terms of the acquisition of the Future Submarine, all of the decision-making in that process—through the competitive evaluation process and through the analysis done by defence and by government—was based on the capability that Australia needs to deliver a regionally superior submarine that will respond to the threats that we see in our region in the coming decades, all of which are set out in the defence white paper. Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility 45 14:32 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland In directing my question to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, I thank him for his energy in the work he does towards the development of northern Australia. I ask the minister if he could update the Senate on the potential investments he is aware of that are being made under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF. 14:32 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Macdonald for his question and would also like to place on record the long commitment of Senator Macdonald and the work that he has done to contribute to developing the North. Indeed, the agenda the government is prosecuting now—and this is the first time a government has had a white paper on northern Australia—owes a lot to the efforts of Senator Macdonald over many years. It is exciting today that Genex Power has announced to the market that it has received an indicative term sheet from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for a $516 million concessional loan to support the very large investment in energy in Far North Queensland at the former Kidston mine site. That project includes investments in pumped hydro, solar and wind which will create secure supplies for North Queensland. It will create 500 jobs in the construction phase. We very much welcome the strong commitment the NAIF has provided here and wish Genex all the best for the future of the project. I should point out that the term sheet is conditional on a number of things, including agreements on the offtake of power and further equity discussions that Genex will try to progress this year. But this is a major project. Earlier this year, I announced changes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's mandate. The announcement of the term sheet today is a direct result of those changes to provide the NAIF greater flexibility to make offers of this kind. I look forward to working with Genex, the NAIF and the Queensland government to progress these very important projects for North Queensland to secure their energy supplies and to provide hope for economic development and jobs, too. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question. 14:34 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Again, I thank the minister for that very positive news on investments in northern Australia. I ask the minister: what impact will other investments in northern Australia have for, say, beef producers who, as the minister will know, form one of the biggest industries in northern Australia? 14:34 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Senator Macdonald would know that part of the white paper on developing northern Australia is the reinvigorated beef roads program. We've put $100 million into 18 beef roads right across northern Australia. This is specifically targeted at saving the beef industry money. About 30 per cent of the cost of a steak, which you might order at the pub tonight or later this week, comes from transport costs. The more we can bring those down, the better for beef producers and the better for consumers too. That is reflected in the comments of beef producers. Clancy Middleton, a cattle producer in North Queensland, says: 'As producers, we've been on our knees in North Queensland. The sealing of these roads is a cost saving on average of $3.13 a head, and we move about 1.5 million head of cattle across this region. That puts nearly $5 million back into the pockets of farmers and businesses in the north.' This is a very important program that we are building upon. It's great to see it delivering benefits for the agricultural industry in the north. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question. 14:35 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Minister, what future investments in transport and roads will the government make to further expand benefits across northern Australia? 14:36 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland We are not standing still. We are building on those investments we've already made in beef roads and northern Australian roads. In Western Australia I recently announced an additional $160 million to continue to seal the Outback Way. We've made a commitment to seal the Outback Way over the next decade. That's a stretch of road from Winton in western Queensland through to Laverton in Western Australia. Once it is sealed it will be only the third sealed route across our continent. It's a big country. It's great to see us investing in projects that help develop and connect our nation east-west, not just north-south. We've also in the budget announced a further $1.5 billion for roads in northern Australia over the next decade under the Roads of Strategic Importance program. That will build on the work of the beef roads program and the Northern Australia Roads Program to invest in roads that can help boost the economic productivity of northern Australia, including in the agricultural sector and other sectors. I know that there are many people and councils here this week for their national conference who are very excited about these projects. We will continue to work with northern Australians for many years to help that part of the country. Taxation 46 14:37 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. The government expects a $3.7 billion boost to revenue from tobacco excise and customs duty over the next four years under its measure to combat illicit tobacco. Much of this revenue boost occurs in 2019-20, when the government will start taxing tobacco as it enters warehouses rather than when it leaves. This will bring forward revenue. Roughly what proportion of the $3.7 billion boost over four years is attributable to this change in the point at which tobacco is taxed? Can you please explain how this change in the taxing point can have a significant effect over the next four years, given that the average time that tobacco remains in warehouses is only a matter of weeks? 14:38 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for that question. The government is indeed introducing a package of measures, including additional enforcement resources, to combat the illicit tobacco trade and protect the integrity of Australia's tobacco excise system. The package of measures will address this tax gap, promote the health of Australians by supporting the existing tobacco control policies and remove a key source of funding for organised crime. These measures will protect the sustainability and integrity of the tax base and will ensure that everyone pays their fair share, which will enable the government to keep taxes as low as possible, reducing the burden on the legitimate law-abiding economy. The package is estimated to have a net gain to the budget of $3.6 billion over the current forward estimates periods, and a large proportion of the revenue impact is due to moving the taxing point for tobacco to the border to eliminate leakage from licensed warehouses. That is the integrity measure. Rather than collect the tax at a later stage, we'll collect the tax at the border. Changing the taxing point does result in tobacco duty being collected earlier than it otherwise would have been, bringing additional revenue into the current forward estimates period. This includes a one-off boost to revenue in the first year of the measure, as all stock held in warehouses as at 1 July 2019 becomes liable for duty and revenue is received from new tobacco imports due to the earlier taxing point. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Leyonhjelm, a supplementary question. 14:39 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Can the minister assure taxpayers that at least $136 million of the $3.7 billion revenue boost is not attributable to the change in the taxing point but instead attributable to consumers switching back to legal tobacco? I say this because the budget boosts spending on tobacco law enforcement by $136 million, and this would be unjustified if it didn't generate as least as much revenue. 14:40 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The package of measures that the government has announced is designed to combat the illicit tobacco trade and protect the integrity of Australia's tobacco excise system. In addition to requiring importers to pay excise when tobacco enters the country rather than when it enters the domestic market, eliminating leakage from warehouses to the black market, the measures the government has announced include the creation of a new multi-agency Illicit Tobacco Taskforce led by the Australian Border Force to bolster the capability of enforcement agencies to ensure future revenue and remove a key source of funding for organised crime. The package will target the three main sources of illicit tobacco: smuggling, warehouse leakage and domestic production. The ATO and Home Affairs analysis suggests that illicit tobacco results in almost $600 million of forgone tobacco duty each year. According to the same analysis, leakage from licensed warehouses is responsible for an estimated 250 tonnes of tobacco that is unaccounted for each year—an estimated $172 million of forgone revenue. The package as a whole— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question. 14:41 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I'm not sure that amounted to an assurance. But, anyway, bringing forward tax is essentially a tax hike. It will hurt the cash flow of tobacco suppliers and cause an increase in prices for legal tobacco. Can the minister advise how much the bringing forward of tax will increase prices for legal tobacco? And won't this make illicit tobacco even more attractive to smokers? 14:41 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government recognises that the black economy is unfair and that it imposes significant costs on the community as a whole and on the economy. It creates an uneven playing field for business, fosters a culture of tax evasion and welfare fraud and undermines the integrity of Australia's regulatory procurement and migration systems and facilitates criminal activity, including organised crime, money laundering, illicit tobacco and illegal gambling. The package of measures the government has announced to combat the illicit tobacco trade and protect the integrity of Australia's tobacco excise system targets those who are doing the wrong thing. The government recognises that most people in businesses in our community are doing the right thing. The package of measures the government has announced to combat the illicit tobacco trade and protect the integrity of Australia's tobacco excise system therefore seeks to reduce regulation for honest Australians by better targeting those doing the wrong thing. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 47 14:42 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. In his first speech to the Senate, Assistant Minister McGrath, the former deputy federal director of the Liberal Party, said, 'The ABC should be sold.' Does the minister agree with Assistant Minister McGrath? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'll call the minister when there's order in the chamber. On my right and left—order! 14:43 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria As I indicated to colleagues yesterday, the government is very clearly and absolutely of the view that the ABC will always remain in government hands. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator Fifield. Senator FIFIELD D2I As I have been saying, as recently as a doorstop an hour or two ago, the ABC is one of the important underpinnings of media diversity in Australia. The ABC also represents a significant Commonwealth contribution to civic journalism in this country. The government absolutely supports the important work of the ABC. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question. 14:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In 2013, Senator Paterson celebrated a Victorian Liberal Party State Council meeting where 'privatisation of the ABC was overwhelmingly passed'. Isn't it clear that the Liberal Party's ambition to privatise the ABC is long-held? 14:45 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The organisational party has responsibility for the selection of candidates. The parliamentary party has sole responsibility for the determination of policy. Our policy is clear and is not changing. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question. 14:45 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales When asked on Monday whether privatising the ABC was a legitimate debate within the government, Senator Reynolds said, 'Absolutely.' Does the minister agree with Senator Reynolds? 14:46 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Senator Reynolds was making the observation that I just made—that the organisational party has responsibility for selection of parliamentary candidates and the parliamentary party has responsibility for policy. Defence 48 14:46 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on how Australia is strengthening defence cooperation with our Pacific partners? 14:47 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales (—) (): I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. Australia is of course very committed to supporting a secure and stable Pacific. We are strengthening our engagement through a number of initiatives, as I know the Minister for International Development and the Pacific is well aware. From a defence perspective, our Joint Task Group Indo-Pacific Endeavour 18 is a current major maritime activity that reflects our commitment to deepen our engagement and our partnerships with regional security forces in the Pacific through both dialogue and practical activities. The backbone of IPE 2018 is HMAS Adelaide, our LHD, the frigates HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Toowoomba and the supply ship HMAS Success. As well as those ships' companies we also have embarked on the ships an Australian Army team from 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and other support personnel from Navy and Air Force, which is a total of around 1,200 members. In addition, there are a number of international defence members, including marines from Marine Rotational Force-Darwin, and Sri Lankan marines as well. So far, IPE 2018 has visited Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu and they have undertaken some very practical activities with their counterparts. To give a couple of examples, in Vanuatu the task force delivered supplies to meet the needs of people who had been displaced by volcanic activity on Ambae Island. The electrical and marine technical sailors supported the Vanuatu police force maritime wing with maintenance on RVS Tukoro, which is one of the Pacific patrol boats from Australia, and members conducted a disaster-response-themed training activity. Last week I was in Tonga on board HMAS Adelaide. I saw firsthand the excellent work of the task group, including the handover of five Unimog trucks to assist Tonga's capacity to respond to natural disasters, in particular. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question. 14:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Can the minister update the Senate on how else we are building cooperation and strengthening engagement across our region? 14:49 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales This is very important. It is not just in the Pacific that we are increasing our defence engagement. Across more than a dozen engagements at the Shangri-La Dialogue I noted repeatedly that we are engaging with nations small and large, both bilaterally and in smaller groupings, to strengthen the cohesion of nations that share our vision for the region, that contribute to security and stability in our region. Whether it's through training, through exercises, through educational opportunities or through improved information-sharing, we are always looking at ways to build on our capacity and our interoperability across the Indo-Pacific. We are providing practical support wherever we can, as requested by our partners. I think the best current example of that is the government's assistance to the government of Papua New Guinea for their hosting of APEC meetings in November of this year. We work closely with our partners across the region, particularly on counterterrorism, and specifically with the Philippines, with Indonesia, with Malaysia and with Singapore to address that continuing threat. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question. 14:50 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Can the minister further advise how our longstanding relationships with our partners in the Indo-Pacific are contributing to regional stability? 14:50 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Reynolds. There's one very timely example of our ability to work closely with our partners, which is built on a foundation of shared interests and values and of people-to-people links that have been established over decades. Next week, Australia and Malaysia will mark the 60th anniversary of Australia's presence at the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth. Generations of ADF members have lived and worked at Butterworth, including my own partner's parents, with their two young sons for a period. Many have built important bonds with their Malaysian counterparts. Around 100 former ADF personnel are expected to attend next week's celebration, which is a mark of the very special place that Butterworth holds in the hearts and minds of many Australians. The longevity of that engagement and our presence there at Butterworth testifies to Malaysia's and Australia's shared interests and also to both nations' commitment to regional stability. These are very important relationships on which we continue to build. Special Broadcasting Service 49 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. On Monday, SBS managing director Michael Ebeid said of the decision to sublicense World Cup games to Optus: … it does come down to finances … We've had about $40 million in reductions in our government funding … had we not had to look at our budgets, we probably would have retained it, like we were planning when we bought it. On Monday, the Prime Minister refused to apologise to Australians and football fans for his cuts to the SBS. Will the Minister for Communications now apologise to football fans and all Australians for cuts made on Malcolm Turnbull's watch? 14:52 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I'm happy to share with colleagues some other things that Mr Ebeid said in his interview. Mr Ebeid said, and I think this is a self-evident point: … sports rights have been going up and up and up. The World Cup was no different – we've paid a lot more for the World Cup and at the same time our costs for the World Cup have gone up. These are I guess what might be considered some self-evident observations. He also said: So at the end of the day you have to cut your cloth to suit your own funding. One of the things we wanted to make sure was that we retained the World Cup for our viewers … In reference to the arrangements that SBS entered into, he went on to say, 'It helped us financially. It gave us more product, more games in terms of the EPL, and it allowed us to still have all the main games of the World Cup, so a good deal overall. And, as I say, it enabled us to retain the World Cup where we may not have been able to afford to do it on our own.' So I thought that those might be some helpful comments from the MD of SBS, for colleagues. Mr Ebeid also went on to say: 'SBS is limited in things like its advertising revenue, so we can only go to a maximum of five minutes an hour, compared to our commercial counterparts, which probably do 13 to 15 minutes. So our ability to monetise is restricted by our ability to increase our revenue, which is hamstrung. So we had to adjust our spend accordingly.' On this side of the chamber, we had a proposition before the Senate to give the SBS greater flexibility when it came to advertising. Those opposite opposed that. So Mr Ebeid made the clear point that greater advertising flexibility would have assisted them in precisely this sort of circumstance. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, with a supplementary question. 14:54 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Will the minister stop blaming SBS and accept responsibility for the consequence of his government's funding cuts? 14:54 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I thought I was fairly clear in my answer to the last question. I'm not blaming SBS. I am blaming those opposite. We wanted to give the SBS greater advertising flexibility. Those opposite said, 'No, no, no, no, no; we won't let that happen.' I don't know if those opposite are suggesting that that particular matter be revisited. It's one that we've taken off the table, but perhaps Senator Farrell might like to clarify if he is proposing that that which Mr Ebeid referred to be revisited. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question. 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I ask the questions here today. Given that SBS holds the Australian broadcast rights for the 2022 FIFA World Cup, will the Turnbull government finally accept that its cuts have consequences for SBS programming and the public? 14:56 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria What a good thing it is that SBS is broadcasting free to air every event involving the Socceroos. What a great thing it is that SBS will be broadcasting free to air the World Cup final. On this side of the chamber we think that's a good thing. Obviously, we are aware of the technical difficulties that Optus has had, and SBS and Optus have worked together to ensure that there's even more that is being broadcast free to air. So I would ask for Senator Farrell to reflect on his contribution today. National Disability Insurance Scheme 49 14:57 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland My question is to Senator Fierravanti-Wells, the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Can the minister provide the Senate with an update on the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is the minister aware of any significant changes the scheme is providing to Australians with a disability? 14:57 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I thank Senator Stoker for her question. This is, of course, a groundbreaking reform which is improving outcomes for Australians with a significant and permanent disability, and the Turnbull government is committed to delivering for the Australian people. Every dollar and every cent this government committed to delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme remains in place and always will. Senator Stoker asks for an update. On 31 March this year, the NDIS quarterly report showed solid progress in line with expectations. In total, more than 160,000 Australians are now benefitting from the NDIS, and this includes more than 10,000 children who have been supported through the scheme's Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway. We're seeing benefits all around Australia. But let me take you, Senator Stoker, to Queensland. In Queensland over 14,500 people have already accessed the NDIS, and this number will increase. At the full rollout in 2020, over 95,000 people are expected to be receiving life-changing support. In an electorate like Longman, it is expected that over 4,100 Australians will receive support through the NDIS when it is rolled out. Importantly, under this government Australians can be assured that their government is absolutely committed to funding the NDIS. Of course, that is in direct contrast to those opposite, who failed to fund the NDIS through a formal mechanism. They failed to put in place a formal mechanism that would assist Australians with a disability. The PRESIDENT I0Q A supplementary question, Senator Stoker? 14:59 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Is the minister aware of any budget measures that will provide more support to clients and providers of the NDIS in this transition phase? 14:59 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Stoker, I'm pleased to report that this year's budget commitment of $64 million for a jobs and market fund and broader communication activity will support this development. This is an important investment that will help raise awareness of NDIS job opportunities and overcome market barriers. It will also combat service difficulties in rural and remote areas and help businesses to grow and develop. I'm advised that activities funded through the jobs and market fund will include things like work to support the development of an e-marketplace, online training modules for NDIS workers, support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to become NDIS registered providers, workshops to inform school leavers about NDIS career opportunities and projects to develop new service delivery models. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question. 15:00 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Could the minister provide any examples of clients who have increased services or supports as part of the scheme? 15:00 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Thank you. The good news from the Turnbull government's rollout of a fully funded NDIS scheme is that all Australians are going to get a benefit. In addition to Australians receiving increased services or supports, the good news is that some Australians are now receiving life-changing support for the first time. In fact, there are 45,000 great examples of Australians getting these supports for the first time. This means 45,000 Australians getting the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live a better life. Often this is not just the person receiving the benefit; it's also their communities and their families. The NDIS is one of the most important social policy innovations that have been developed and implemented in Australian history, and the Turnbull government is delivering this—unlike those opposite. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 50 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 50 15:02 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. Leave not granted. Senator CORMANN HDA Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator CORMANN HDA As the government have made very clear for some time— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong! Senator CORMANN HDA we are committed to delivering income tax relief to hardworking families and we want the government's long-term plan to be legislated in full and unamended. Earlier today the Senate decided to move an amendment to our bill for providing income tax relief to hardworking families. That means, in order for us to deal conclusively with this bill this week, it needs to go back to the House of Representatives and it needs to have time to come back to the Senate for final determination. Obviously, we've had some debate on this now. The truth is that we could have debate on this for another couple of weeks. That would not change the mind of the Labor Party, it would not change the mind of the Greens and it would not change the mind of Senator Storer. Everybody knows what their position is in relation to this bill. Obviously, we have taken into account the feedback that we've received from senators across the chamber. There was no appetite for extended hours tonight and there was no appetite for extended hours tomorrow, so there is only one way we can deal with the bill this week, given that it has to go back to the House of Representatives, where the government will not be supporting the amendment that was passed by the Senate. The only way we can deal with this efficiently this week so that we can provide certainty to hardworking families around Australia about the income tax relief that they deserve is by now moving this motion in the terms that have been circulated in the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is about to stand up and be completely outraged about what the government is doing here. She, of course, was part of a government that moved motions to limit debate or guillotine or gag debate on no fewer than 188 occasions—including 53 times in one week! The Labor Party government that Senator Wong was a party to, the government that Senator Wong was a senior minister in, gagged debate on 188 occasions and gagged debate on 53 occasions in one week. Many of their bills were passed without any debate at all, supported by the Greens. I remember when Senator Bob Brown, the then leader of the Greens, participated in the first gag. The truth is that this is a very important economic reform. This is a very important reform for working families around Australia. This is about the government, the Senate and the parliament as a whole making sure that working families around Australia can keep more of their own money, don't go backwards and are not on the receiving end of bracket creep. We have the opportunity to legislate in full this week the seven-year long-term plan that the government announced in the budget for working families. I call on all senators who support this personal income tax cut getting legislated this week. I call on all senators who want to see working families around Australia keep more of their own money so that low- and middle-income earners can have some relief from cost-of-living pressures and so that all working Australians get the right incentive, the right encouragement and the right reward for effort to ensure that they are not on the receiving end of bracket creep and there is not this drag on economic growth moving forward that comes with bracket creep. I call on every senator who supports this bill and supports the efficient passage of this bill through the parliament as a whole to support this suspension and to support the procedural motions that will follow so that the Senate can deal with this bill conclusively today so it can go back to the House of Representatives, where the government will reject the amendment that was passed by the Senate this morning, and so that the Senate has the opportunity to conclusively deal with this bill here in the Senate tomorrow so we can all go home this weekend, having delivered for working families around Australia. 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Not happy in failing in their attempt to hold the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners hostage to the tax cuts for high-income earners, what we now see are a government spitting the dummy and not even allowing debate in the Senate chamber. How pathetic! What a government! We gave you 3½ hours last night by agreement. You lose a vote on an amendment and you say: 'Oh, my goodness! We have to guillotine debate because we don't want any further debate.' What are you so scared of? This is a complete dummy spit by Senator Cormann, the man who styles himself as the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What a dummy spit! You lose on one amendment and now you want to guillotine the debate. I mean, really? But let me just come back to this point. The government say, 'Our priority is low- and middle-income earners.' Do you know what? They're holding tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians hostage to tax cuts for high-income earners that they want to deliver in six years time. That's what this guillotine is about. They're saying, 'Let's hold hostage the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians that will apply from July this year—next month—that everyone in this chamber supports, except the Greens, to tax cuts for high-income earners in six years time.' That is what this guillotine is all about. It's not about low- and middle-income earners. It's about executing a naked political tactic to prioritise high-income earners in six years time. It only needs to be said to demonstrate how ridiculous it is. I would say this to the crossbench: regardless of your position on tax, what a discourtesy to the chamber. We gave this government 3½ hours of debate last night, because we do understand that it is important to get on with this debate. We have amendments from Senator Storer, we have amendments from the opposition and we have amendments from the other members of the crossbench which have not even been debated. Did Mathias send me a little text and say, 'Can we please have a bit more time. Give up the MPI'? No. Because, you know what, they want the timetable to get it down to the House and back up again. This week it's all entirely about the political tactics but don't worry about the Senate chamber and actually debating amendments. I say to the crossbench: why don't you make them guillotined for tomorrow so we can actually finish the debate? How about that? You see, I can't move an amendment because he's moved the motion in a way that I won't be able to amend it. How about we guillotine tomorrow, so that we can actually have a debate? If you don't agree to finish debate here what is clear is that this government is able to walk right over this Senate chamber as a legislating chamber, because they want to execute a political tactic. This is nothing to do with anything other than holding tax cuts for low-income Australians hostage to tax cuts for high-income Australians in six years time. It is an utter discourtesy, Senator Cormann, to me and to the opposition, when we gave you what you asked for—additional hours last night—to come in here and spring on us, during a question time debate, that you're going to move a guillotine to not allow any further debate beyond 6.30 pm, which will not even allow the crossbench to debate their changes. Senator Cormann, if you and your team think that you will get cooperation from the opposition around a range of issues you want I think you better think something else, because we're not going to allow a discourtesy to the chamber like this to subsist. At no stage were we even asked to give up the MPI today—not even that—after we'd agreed to give up 3½ hours last night. Why? Because you want a political tactic— (Time expired) 15:12 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria One of the great parliamentarians, one of the great Liberals, Peter Costello coined the phrase, 'Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor', and we are seeing that writ large today on the other side of the chamber. Regrettably, I have had a very good vantage point over a number of years from which to see that Labor hypocrisy. What I am referring to is my misfortune for the best part of eight years to be the manager of coalition business for half that time in government and half that time in opposition. In that time in opposition we saw an incredible display of the use of the guillotine. Over the course of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government 188 bills were guillotined. Debates on 188 bills were guillotined by the Australian Labor Party with the support of the Australian Greens but there was one—I have to say—outstanding example. I'm not in the habit of doing this, but let me refer to a press release of my own from 20 June 2013 headed 'Government to gag debate on 53 bills in the Senate'. Senator Macdonald, who it would be fair to say has a fair degree of institutional knowledge in this place, still recalls what an incredible time that was. Let me just give a little more detail for the benefit of crossbench colleagues who may not have been with us at that time: Of the 53 Bills listed to be guillotined, there are 49 bills that will each be debated for less than one hour and of these Bills there are 30 that will be examined for less than half an hour, and 17 for less than fifteen minutes. So, for those opposite, using the guillotine was standard operating procedure. On this side of the chamber, it is something that is deployed very sparingly. Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator FIFIELD D2I This is the fourth time, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate remains me. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated, everyone in this chamber knows what they are going to do. Everyone in this chamber knows what their position is. These are matters which have been canvassed extensively in both chambers of the parliament and in the community. The time has arrived for the Senate to do its job, and that is to make a call on this important legislation. It's worth reminding colleagues that this legislation is all about allowing the Australian people to keep more of what is theirs. We've seen from those opposite an interesting twist on their previous policy of roll-back. You might recall that, when we introduced the new tax system and we got rid of the wholesale sales tax and applied the GST and reduced income tax all at the same time, those opposite wanted to roll back the GST. They actually wanted to remove a tax. What those opposite now want to do is introduce a different twist on the concept of roll-back, and that is to roll back tax cuts. They want to roll back tax cuts. This is bizarre in the extreme. Colleagues—I say through you, Mr President—should support this motion to suspend standing orders so that we can move the motion that will set out a mechanism and a time frame within which we can address this legislation together. That's what the Australian people expect. They expect us to get on with transacting the people's business. That's what this motion for suspending standing orders seeks to do: simply to give this chamber the opportunity to pursue the people's business. So we will not hear and recognise the calls of those opposite when they complain about the guillotine. I look at Senator Collins. She was the Manager of Government Business at the time that those 54 bills were guillotined. 15:17 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria What another great day for the Australian parliament! What a great day! We've been engaging in this debate: 'My tax cuts are bigger than your tax cuts.' 'No, my tax cuts are bigger than your tax cuts.' Where are we now? 'You guillotine more than we guillotine.' What a great day for the Australian parliament! Let's get to the crux of what's going on here. The government are desperate to rush this bill through because it's very clear that, the more that people understand about this legislation, the less likely they are to vote for it. We had a perfect example right here only a few hours ago. We had Pauline Hanson's One Nation party coming into the Senate, with Senator Hanson herself saying, 'I don't get a tax cut out of this; this doesn't affect me,' demonstrating that she has no idea what this legislation does. Stages 1 and 2 deliver Senator Hanson over $4,000 in tax cuts. That's what they do. When you add stage 3 of this bill, she gets over an extra $11,000 in her pocket. It is very obvious that even those members of the crossbench that the government are talking to don't understand it, and the government's desperate to rush it through this chamber. That's what's going on right now. The quicker you get it through, the less likely it is that Senator Hanson will understand what she's voting for. I rarely quote Paul Keating, but I will today. I'll quote Paul Keating in reference to another debate on tax reform. When it came to the GST and Mr Hewson, the then opposition leader, talking about his plans to introduce a GST, said, 'If you don't understand it, don't vote for it, because, if you did understand it, you'd never vote for it.' That's what Paul Keating said about the GST. That's the same advice I give to Senator Hanson. She clearly doesn't understand it, so don't vote for it. Don't vote for something you don't understand. She came in here and she impugned Senator Hanson-Young. She said, 'Senator Hanson-Young implied I'm going to get a tax cut, but I don't get a tax cut out of this.' She clearly doesn't understand the legislation. If you vote for stages 1, 2 and 3 and you're on an income of over $200,000, that's an extra seven grand in your back pocket thanks to stage 3 of the tax cut. If you are a banker, a CEO, an executive or a politician, this package is a windfall. This is like winning the lottery. If you're a childcare worker, a nurse or a teacher, there's a few hundred bucks in your back pocket—that's true. But if you're somebody who's working in this joint, or the CEO of a bank or a senior executive at a large corporation: thank you; that's thousands of dollars in your back pocket. This is a prescription to turbocharge inequality in this country. When you hear a debate in this chamber and when you hear the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and members of the crossbench saying, 'No, my tax cut is bigger, better and fairer than yours,' what you're also hearing is: 'We're going to spend less money on schools. We're going to spend less money on hospitals. We're not going to increase Newstart. We're going to cut jobs from the Department of the Environment and Energy, so we're going to lose threatened species in this country. We're not going to invest in renewable energy infrastructure.' That's what you hear. When you hear, 'My tax cuts are bigger than your tax cuts,' just listen to what that means. It means that if you're waiting in an emergency department, you'll wait longer. If you're somebody who needs to have their hip replaced and you're on a waiting list in a public hospital, you'll wait longer. If you're somebody who sends their child to a public school, you'll pay more. If you're somebody who at the moment can't afford to put a roof over your head, if you're somebody on Newstart, you're going to be consigned to living in poverty. That's what this debate is. This is a debate that is ripping money away from the vital institutions that make Australia a decent country, and it's throwing around a few pre-election bribes in the lead-up to an election, saying to people, 'Vote for me, because I'm going to put some money in your back pocket, but screw your children, who are going to have to pay for the mess that we leave behind.' The reason this government wants to rush this piece of legislation through this chamber is that it knows that the people who are about to support it don't understand it. So Senator Hanson, I say to you, 'If you don't understand it, don't vote for it.' 15:22 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I'll follow Senator Wong's contribution as to why we oppose this suspension by firstly addressing Senator Fifield's reminiscing of days gone past. Some of that reminiscing, for instance—and I point this out to senators in the crossbench—is referring to standing order 142. The critical issue here is: what is the urgency? As far as we're aware, the only justification for this rush is that Senator Cormann is having a dummy spit because, an hour after he lost the vote, he realised he'd lost the vote. This is what the problem is. Senator Cormann is completely embarrassed about the fact that, as the Senate was addressing the running sheet, we started on the most significant issue. The most significant issue was stage 3. Senators in this chamber have addressed that matter and Senator Cormann and the government don't like it. To the crossbench: why should the Senate now cooperate with the government's dummy spit about the decision or the matter we have determined? Why would you do that? I made the point about the urgency. There is no urgency in this matter. There is no urgency about how stages 1 and 2 could operate. Indeed, proper and detailed consideration of the amendments before the Senate are critical to ensuring that what eventually is resolved in relation to stages 1 and 2 occur appropriately. Think about what the government have suggested here. They gave no notice. In the course of question time, they circulated a motion which I suspect was not even consulted on with the crossbench either. They left no opportunity to discuss alternatives to moving immediately into consideration of this bill and wiping out our existing program for the day. Senators, I ask you to remember the last time I made this point, which was the last time the government tried a stunt like this. It was only in the last sitting fortnight, if I recall correctly. The government say on one hand, 'We want cooperation; we want the Senate to work cooperatively in relation to how we work through that program.' Well, that's what we did yesterday. We said: 'We cannot imagine how you can get your legislative agenda through in the two weeks that are involved here. What do senators prefer in terms of when we should sit and how we should conduct our business?' We agreed to an additional 3½ hours last night to do that. But did the government give anyone any notice that this stunt was going to occur and that we were going to completely wipe out the program today to move to the committee stage consideration of this bill? No, they didn't. In fact, they probably designed it over the last hour or so once they woke up to the fact that stage 3 had been determined. Senators, don't reward a dummy spit like this and don't be fooled by the characterisation that this is how things previously occurred. Senator Xenophon would have been very distressed if a gag of this character had been agreed to. The part of this story, of course, that Senator Fifield doesn't tell is that he wasn't particularly good at being a manager and, indeed, Senator Macdonald was the one running the floor most of the time. The problem with that disharmony was that they wasted an enormous amount of time, which then necessitated us managing their time to force them to deal with the critical elements such as what amendments they might propose. Even then they still wasted that time when they were time managed, because the current government, when in opposition, were not Her Majesty's opposition. They were too busy bickering and not addressing the critical issues that they should have. We're seeing similar things now, when, without any notice and with an enormous breach of faith in question time, they've landed a stunt like this. There is no urgency with this legislation. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Collins! Senator Birmingham? 15:27 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Well, listen to it: the feigned outrage from those opposite, the fake moral indignation of the Australian Labor Party. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! There's a point of order being raised by Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I was standing absolutely in line of sight then. Senator Cameron was on his feet first. I agree that, if they'd stood together, the minister would have had the call. He absolutely stood first, and you ought to have called him. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, firstly, Senator Cameron stood while Senator Collins was still speaking, while I was calling Senator Collins to order. If you would like that to be the precedent for this place, there'll be a lot of people standing up. Secondly, I might say that, if a minister had not stood and I had called another member of the opposition, I think that would have been an unfair representation of what happens in these limited debates around the chamber, where managers and leaders are given precedence to represent the positions. Senator Wong 00AOU That's the case when people stand together. Mr President, I accept that your version of what you perceived was Senator Cameron standing earlier. I saw Senator Cameron on his feet well before Senator Birmingham, after Senator Collins had finished speaking. In those circumstances, the appropriate thing for you to do would have been to call him. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I'm not going to be calling people who stand before the end of another speech lest it start a chain reaction in this chamber which I don't think would be productive for the operation of the chamber. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Well, this isn't productive. The PRESIDENT I0Q You're quite right that it's not productive, Senator Collins. Senator Cameron AI6 There was one second on the clock when I stood. You are entitled to stand and seek the call. That's exactly what I did, and I was first on my feet. Senator Birmingham didn't even consider standing until I stood. The precedent is there. I stood properly and at the right time. The PRESIDENT I0Q I thank you for admitting you stood while Senator Collins was still speaking. I'm going to call Senator Birmingham to continue and conclude this debate. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Indeed, the outrage and the indignation continues on so many levels, but of course it's the hypocrisy that strikes home time and time and time again when you listen to the arguments of the Labor Party on this. This is hypocrisy from the party who saw fit to apply a guillotine 188 times during their time in government, against the coalition, who have applied the same approach just four times in five years. Look at the scorecard of respect for the Australian Senate: 188 times over there, four times here when it's necessary and warranted. Why is it warranted? Senator Collins comes in and says: 'What's the urgency? What's the import?' The import is that these tax cuts matter to Australians. These tax cuts matter to a stronger economy. And what else is the import? The very long list of other legislation that senators right around this chamber expect to be dealt with. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU To clarify: these are the tax cuts six years away—very urgent! The PRESIDENT I0Q Please resume your seat. That was not a point of order. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Of course, these tax cuts are a full package, much of which takes effect much sooner, and that's why you want to make sure that Australian businesses and Australian taxpayers have certainty. But it is not just certainty over the tax cuts; you also want to ensure they have certainty over other important reforms that come out of this year's budget, other important reforms that the government's brought legislation before this chamber for. We've seen that the Labor Party are happy to soak up time in this place to ensure that other business cannot be dealt with. Yes, we heard the Labor Party say, 'Well, we gave additional hours last night,' and yes they did. But what did we see during those additional hours? Twenty-minute speech after repetitive 20-minute speech from Labor Party senators, who would have happily kept on doing that as long as the window was available for them to do so. We see it time and time and time again. Senator Wong 00AOU Don't worry; you won't get it again. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X And there we have Senator Wong come out with the threats. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Bilyk on a point of order? Senator Bilyk HZB Senator Simon Birmingham— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Wong! One of your colleagues is on her feet trying to raise a point of order. Senator Bilyk HZB Senator Birmingham has absolutely misrepresented what happened last night. A number of us only spoke for about 10 minutes. The PRESIDENT I0Q That is not a point of order, Senator Bilyk; it's a matter of debate. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X What we see now is of course that, once they do the indignation and the hyperventilation, the Labor Party move on to the threats. They threaten the government, they threaten the chamber and they threaten the crossbenchers. I trust that the Senate crossbenchers, of course, will be better than that in terms of acknowledging— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Collins on a point of order. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 The minister is misleading the Senate. There have been no threats, and to suggest that senators have been threatened is out of order. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, that's not a point of order; it's a matter of language used in the chamber. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I'm trying to rule on your colleague's point of order from the chair. Can I conclude this ruling before you raise the next point of order? Senator Collins, I don't take that as a point of order. It's a matter of language used in the chamber. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I'm happy to respond to your admonishment, but I do think, if it's in response to a minister yelling at me, you might at least be even-handed about it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I like to think I am even-handed from the chair. You have been vocal today. I have respected the privilege normally granted to leaders. Senator Birmingham, please continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X The simple message that everybody should take is: don't listen to Labor's bullying, don't listen to Labor's threats, don't listen to Labor's feigned outrage or moral indignation; look at Labor's hypocrisy. This party thought that it was okay in one week to do on 53 occasions what it now condemns the government for doing just once. This party thought that it was okay through its time in government to do on 188 occasions what it condemned the government for doing on four occasions. This is what was, as Senators Cormann and Fifield rightly pointed out, standard operating practice for the Labor Party in government, yet in opposition they rail against it. In the end we hope the tax cuts will deliver savings for Australians for years to come, for generations to come, setting in place a better, fairer tax system that addresses the problems of bracket creep. The Labor Party can go to the next election, if they want, promising to roll on taxes. 'Roll on new taxes' is what Labor's policy is going to be, but that's no justification to stand in the way of this Australian Senate, this year, at this moment in time, giving Australians better, fairer taxes, a tax cut that would create a better opportunity— Senator Wong 00AOU Then debate the bill. Have the courage to debate the bill. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X And indeed, Senator Wong, debating it is what we have done. It is what we have been doing. Now is the time for decision, for action, to give Australians the tax cuts that they deserve. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the minister's motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:40]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

37 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 33 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:43 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That a motion relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, are you rising? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 I'm rising to speak on that motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q It is moved without amendment or debate. I'm taking advice from the Clerk. Senator Collins, you were correct. You are entitled to speak; my apologies. 15:43 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Senator Cormann might be in the position that we all are in relation to the motion that he has circulated, because the procedure for dealing with these issues is that indeed he does seek to move a motion without amendment or debate. The problem is the Senate as a whole doesn't understand the detail of the motion and its implications. The PRESIDENT I0Q Sorry, Senator Collins. There has been a little confusion here at the Clerk's table, and conflicting advice. I ask for a moment to resolve it. On the basis that there is conflicting advice, I'm going to defer to the Senate having the right to debate it. We'll seek advice from the actual Clerk, who's currently not in the chamber. Senator Collins, please continue. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Thank you, Mr President. I commend you on that decision. Senator Cormann is in a flurry because he doesn't want the Senate to fully understand the implications of the motion that he's seeking precedence to move. Let me give you one example amongst opposition senators that we have been dealing with in the last few minutes. The question was: how does this impact on today's program? What does it mean for the remainder of the program? The motion that's been circulated appears to mean that when we get back to government business on the Red, which is item 19—when we get through all the other business this afternoon and get to item 19—if we haven't reached 6.30 by then, we'll have whatever the remainder of the time is. That is what the government is proposing. I would highlight to senators who have circulated amendments that are on the running sheet here to consider: if they support precedence now to deal with this motion, how much time will we be allowing for consideration of their own amendments? Let's look at what might happen here if we allow the government to abuse Senate processes and have this process occur. What will happen is that we will move through business on a Wednesday as we ordinarily do—if you're lucky, under normal arrangements, you might only have about half an hour more of government business—and this tax plan that the government is moving, phases 1, 2 and 3, may receive only an hour and a half of committee-stage consideration in the Senate. An hour and a half! What are you hiding? There is no rush. There is no urgency; I'll come to the detail about the lack of urgency in a moment. But I do ask senators to consider: do you really want to allow precedence for this minister to move a motion that will circumvent proper consideration of the government's tax plan? If you allow precedence, that is where we will be going. We still have before the committee-stage consideration amendments by Senator Storer, a class by the opposition, a separate class by the opposition, Senator Storer, Centre Alliance and the opposition again. Indeed, we've dealt with the final block but only one block of all of the amendments here. Of course, what's generated this dummy spit is that, in managing the committee-stage consideration, the opposition went immediately to the critical issue and the Senate determined an outcome that the government doesn't like. I ask those senators who joined with the opposition and the Greens to vote down stage 3 to consider common sense here: if you agree to precedence, and if you agree to this motion, you're basically compromising yourself. You're saying, 'I oppose stage 3 but I'm going to circumvent any consideration of the other stages and I'm going to fast-track this back to the House of Representatives.' Then comes the next danger of interpretation in this motion. Have a very close look at paragraph (c) in the motion, and read the last phrase in (c): when the message comes back from the House of Representatives, it will be dealt with 'immediately without amendment or debate'. What this government is trying to do is the extraordinary thing of removing your own prerogative. Why would you support it? It makes no sense. This is an enormous dummy spit by Senator Cormann because he did not succeed with stage 3. Now he's asking senators to compromise their own capacity in relation to dealing with this matter. You saw just a moment ago that the government needed to even get advice about how to move forward with the guillotine, because they didn't know when senators could speak. Fortunately, I do know it is our prerogative to address this issue, and we should do so. We should allow time for all senators to understand what this motion really means. So, on the face of it, I and others thought, 'Oh, we're going immediately into this.' Well, we're not. We'll get to it at item 19 on the Red, if we even get there before 6.30. And guess what's going to happen at 6.30? At 6.30, we're going to roll through votes. You won't have the opportunity to ask any questions. You won't be able to query the government about how one thing or another with stages 1 or 2 might operate. They are completely avoiding scrutiny of this package. They are removing the Senate's power to review. Our critical and core responsibility is what is at stake here. That is what this motion does. I would be stunned if a well-informed senator would agree to have their powers compromised in this fashion. But let's get to some of the other facts of the matter here. Let's go back to Senator Birmingham's discussion about the urgency. There is no urgency other than the government's desire to spin together some political whim. Let's address these tax issues. Labor supports stage 1. So there's no urgency on that one. In fact, it's a refund. You've got until June-July 2019 for it to be dealt with administratively, so there is no immediate urgency on that. Step 2 doesn't come into effect until 1 July 2022—48 months away. Step 3 doesn't come into effect until 1 July 2024—72 months away—up to two terms of the parliament. The other element of this picture that hasn't really been well explained by the government is why they are relying on standing order 142. They're basically asking the Senate to again limit its power, limit its capacity, to consider issues in debate. I encourage senators who are considering this issue to have a look at section 142 in the standing orders. For crossbenchers, the standing orders are in your drawers. Have a look at it. Pull it out. Look at standing order 142. Senator Marshall 00AOP Page 79. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Thank you very much, Senator Marshall. Senator Abetz N26 So they don't need questions answered. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 What was that? What don't they need, Senator Abetz? They don't need to be informed! Okay. Senator Abetz says you don't need to be informed. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Abetz, on a point of order. Senator Abetz N26 Just for the record, what Senator Collins asserted is false. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Abetz, that is not a point of order. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 If I misheard Senator Abetz, I invite him to tell me what the real interjection was. If you make an interjection like that in debates, you will get a response. So, perhaps you would like to tell the crossbench what your real interjection was. I believe I heard what I said. If I'm not right, well, fair enough. But let's go back to the important issue here. This revision that the government is using is about getting senators to agree to a limitation of debate on bills. Don't agree to that sort of thing easily. You need to understand that there has been consultation, that there is some urgency and that there is a justification to essentially pass away your powers to ensure that matters are addressed properly. These are the issues that the government has not addressed. They criticise Labor when we are in government—call us hypocrites—but the fact is that in those stages we achieved agreement to manage the Senate program, because senators, including the crossbenchers, were frustrated with how this government conducted itself in opposition. This is not the case here. The case here is that during question time the government alerted us, with no notice, that they were going to move this motion, and they are now suggesting that we should give it precedence. We should not give it precedence, because there is no urgency. Since there is no urgency, I now move the following amendment to the motion: That the words 'without amendment or debate' be deleted from paragraph (c). I want all senators to be aware that they should not easily allow the government to slip into an amendment that they should relinquish their power to amend and debate any matter. To do that is essentially passing on your responsibilities as a senator, without due consideration. The other element at stake here is the lack of consultation— Senator O'Neill 140651 Shameful. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Shameful lack of consultation and even poor understanding about what it is they're proposing, what the motion is and what procedure should be considered going forward. I believe it highlights that the government wants to rush this through to avoid scrutiny. Earlier, Senator Wong referred to it as a dummy-spit—in fact I think she might have borrowed my words from sitting behind her at the time. That's our reflection on how Senator Cormann responded to the limited amount of consideration in detail being given to these matters ahead of question time. It seemed that at first the government didn't quite understand what had happened. Then, obviously, once they had realised what had happened they tried to convince some unsuspecting senators that they should relinquish their powers. I can't understand why any senator would do that, especially in a situation where we've had these bills before us for a limited time only. We facilitated the second reading debate last night and we've had only about an hour of committee-stage consideration, and there was no notice ahead of question time that the government was going to attempt to circumvent that. During question time, the manager was running around talking to crossbench senators, asking, 'How about this?' Don't agree to things under those circumstances. Get some advice. At least consider dealing with these issues about urgency or limitations on considerations after allowing yourself to be properly informed about what is really occurring here. On reading this motion, senators who have been in this place for quite some time at first believed we were going straight into the bill. That is not what I believe is proposed in this motion. It will occur when we get to item 19. As I've pointed out, the more concerning element in paragraph (c)—and it is critical we make this point at this stage, because the government might again attempt to rob us of any opportunity to amend the next motion—is the issue of our dealing with a response from the House, without amendment or debate. This is outrageous. Had the government consulted us in relation to this motion, these are, of course, the points, after advice from the Clerk, that we would have been able to respond to. But we didn't have the opportunity to even seek advice from the Clerk. You saw a moment ago—consider this, Senators—that the Leader of the Government was in a flurry over understanding the motion that he was putting. He needed to seek advice from the clerks. On the floor we had to pause the consideration of the chamber for him to get advice from the clerk. Senator O'Neill 140651 Making it up as they go. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 This is why we are in such dangerous territory. As Senator O'Neill says, they are making it up as they go, and we should not cooperate. Let me again run through why there is no urgency here so that it's clear in the minds of senators. If the government agreed to have step 2 removed from this bill, leaving the parliament to vote only on step 1, we'd vote for that today. There's no problem. We would vote on that today. That's been Labor's position from the start. Stage 1 is the only area where there is such urgency. In relation to step 1 itself, the low- and middle-income tax offset, being a rebate, doesn't take effect until 1 July 2019, so that can be voted on anytime next financial year. The government can provide notice. The government can provide certainty. There's no real issue about certainty, and the government knows that. There is no urgency in relation to step 1. The change to the threshold can retrospectively be changed by the tax commissioner. There is no urgency. Let's consider the argument put by the government about certainty. I interjected when Senator Birmingham was talking about certainty, because he knows and I know that there is very little certainty in three of his core funding areas. Early childhood education: where's the certainty there? They can't even get sufficient families to register in the system. It's going to be an enormous mess next month when it becomes so clear that there are so many families missing out on their support for child care. School education: I have said time and time again that schools cannot plan their funding for next year. This is an enormous problem. This is a bigger issue of certainty than what is proposed with this tax issue. Higher education: the higher education bill is the third bill after this one. There is enormous uncertainty for higher education institutions about what circumstances will operate next year. They don't know how many future higher education places they can offer Australian students. These are the issues that lack certainty. There is no credibility at all to suggest that certainty is the justification for this stunt. This stunt is an enormous dummy spit because the government lost stage 3. Step 3 of their tax plan has been rejected by this chamber in the committee consideration so far, and this is a dummy spit by the Leader of the Government in the Senate because this chamber acted. Don't remove your capacity to continue to act just because the Leader of the Government in the Senate is throwing a dummy spit or having a big sook. Let me say again: Labor supports step 1. We would vote on that today if it would be facilitated, but of course it won't, because they're holding Australians to ransom for tax benefits for the top 20 per cent. Step 2 doesn't come into effect until 1 July 2022, 48 months away. Step 3 doesn't come into effect until 1 July 2024, 72 months away. Senator O'Neill 140651 The kids will be finished high school by then. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 The kids will be finished high school by then. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 The Prime Minister might even be about 70 by then. Maybe this is part of his encouragement program for us all to work until we're 70. Senator Marshall interjecting— Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 That's right, Senator Marshall. It's about this government's approach to aspiration, and it's a stunt. Senator Cameron AI6 He stood before! The PRESIDENT I0Q He did, and there is no-one else on their feet, so the issue you raised earlier is not relevant. Senator Cameron AI6 Very flexible. The PRESIDENT I0Q Do you really want to go there? The Leader of the Government gets precedence over other senators. 16:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That the motion be now put. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins, the amendment, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:09]
(The President—Scott Ryan)

35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 31 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Scott Ryan)

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

Question negatived.

16:15 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That the substantive motion be now put. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

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

35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 31 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 3 PAIRS Bartlett, AJJ Hume, J Payne, MA Ketter, CR Sinodinos, A Polley,

Question agreed to.

16:21 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the precedence motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 31 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:23 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That: (a) government business order of the day no. 1 (Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018) be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be until 6.30 pm today; (b) paragraph (a) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) on the reporting of any messages from the House of Representatives relating to the bill, the message be considered immediately in committee of the whole and any questions on the remaining stages of the bill be put immediately without amendment or debate. 16:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement. I'm very pleased to rise on this to explain to the crossbench why it is so important that they allow this motion to be amended. The crossbenchers—and I appreciate that some of them may not have understood the full import of what they were doing— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 How demeaning. How patronising. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm getting a lecture from Ian Macdonald about being patronising; that's fun! They have agreed to a motion which prevents this chamber from debating a message from the House of Representatives. That is what paragraph (c) of this motion does: it prevents this chamber from debating a message from the House of Representatives. That is an extraordinary thing. I would invite the crossbench to consider what we were sent here to do as senators, which is to legislate. We accept, as we accepted during the debate, that Senator Hanson, for example, had a different view to the Labor Party on the tax package. We disagree with her view, but we accept that she has a right, obviously, to that view. We accept that Senator Patrick and Senator Griff had a different view on stage 2. They were with us in our opposition to step 1 but opposed us in relation to step 2, and we accepted that. What we are saying is that this chamber at least ought to have the opportunity not only to debate the bill in substantive but to debate the bill when it comes back after the House of Representatives takes out the amendments Senator Patrick supported. You ought to have the opportunity to have the chamber debate the bill that comes back from the House, given that the amendment that the House of Representatives will take out is the very amendment that Centre Alliance put into the bill. It is entirely illogical, frankly—and I shouldn't just say Centre Alliance; it was Centre Alliance, the opposition, Senator Storer and the Greens. The majority in this chamber have voted to remove step 3 from the government's tax package on the very sound basis that they do not believe that this tax package ought to be held hostage to tax cuts for high-income earners put in place in six years time. That was a sensible amendment. So I'd invite members of the chamber to consider whether or not it is sensible to pass without amendment a motion which ensures that we cannot debate a message from the House of Representatives. That is our job. If the House does not accept amendments from the Senate, we ought to at least have the opportunity to debate whether or not those amendments should be insisted upon. That is what this second chamber does. I'm told that there's some deal whereby every party leader will speak when the message comes back. That kind of deal is not a substitute for the right of this chamber to insist on an amendment. I put this point to Senator Patrick, Senator Griff and all of the others on the crossbench: the only amendment that has the prospect of being insisted upon is the amendment that you supported this morning. So why on earth would you allow a process whereby the government prevents you from debating and insisting on that amendment? It is an extraordinary thing to agree to that, to say, 'I'll vote for an amendment in the morning and then in the afternoon I'll vote for a procedural motion which prevents the chamber from insisting on that amendment.' The motion that Senator Cormann has just moved, which we cannot amend because of the procedure, is saying that the message be put immediately without amendment or debate—in other words, this chamber works as simply a tick-off on whatever the House of Representatives has decided. That is not what senators were sent here to do. So I would urge the crossbench to support the suspension of standing orders to enable the statement to be made, and I would urge them to reconsider their position on paragraph (c). 16:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That the motion be now put. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:33]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Williams, JR (teller) 31 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 5 PAIRS Hume, J Bartlett, AJJ Payne, MA Ketter, CR Scullion, NG Lines, S Sinodinos, A Polley, H Smith, DA Moore, C

Question agreed to.

16:37 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the substantive motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:37]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 35 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Stoker, AJ Williams, JR (teller) 5 PAIRS Bartlett, AJJ Hume, J Ketter, CR Cormann, M Lines, S Scullion, NG Moore, CM Smith, DA Polley, H Sinodinos,

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question agreed to.

16:43 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank the Senate. I confirm that, when the message returns from the House of Representatives, the government will grant leave to each party leader or Independent to make a contribution on the consideration of the message. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm not going to call anyone until there's order in the chamber. Senators Carr and Collins, your leader is on her feet. Senator Wong 00AOU I seek leave to make a short statement in response. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator Wong 00AOU We gave you more. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for two minutes. 16:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What we've just seen is the deal that I referenced. I want to make clear what this deal means. It means the Senate is seeking to bind its own hands so as not to insist on the removal of step 3. I ask those senators who supported amendments from the opposition and Senator Storer to remove step 3 of the tax package, for the reasons which were discussed this morning, to consider that they have just agreed to a motion to prevent this Senate from insisting that the amendments stand. What they have copped instead is a deal which simply says each of us can have a chat about it. We weren't sent here to have a chat and a cup of tea, actually. We were sent here to legislate. This amendment that those opposite are now saying we cannot insist upon is to remove step 3, which is the part of the package that does not start until 2024, that overwhelmingly advantages high-income earners, that is growing at 12 per cent a year in terms of the cost of the package and that will fundamentally undermine Australia's progressive taxation system. That is the amendment that the majority of the Senate—the government and some of the crossbench—is today saying this Senate cannot insist upon. I would ask the crossbench to reflect upon the wisdom of going down this path. Whatever one's view about the content, to prevent the Senate from insisting is a very poor precedent, indeed. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! That concludes the rearrangement of business matter. We now return to the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Employment 67 16:45 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Jobs and Innovation (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Carr today relating to Telstra. In doing so, I draw the Senate's attention to this extraordinary proposition where at quarter to five we get to discuss this matter. In 15 minutes, we'll have a first speech. We have yet to deal with some housekeeping matters. Then we will go back to the very, very brief, perfunctory discussion of the expenditure of $140 billion worth of expenditure on tax cuts! I want to say that in the context where some people have agreed, to ease their consciences for what they have done, that senators here, leaders of various parties, might get the chance to express their disappointment at what they have done and, as a consequence of that, rob themselves of the right to defend the people of this country from what is a shocking political abuse of the budgetary arrangements in this country whereby the very, very wealthy in this country, the most wealthy people in this country, get the benefit of a Liberal government seeking to distort the taxation system and undermine the progressive nature of our taxation system in this country to offer up a political bribe in the run-up to an imminent federal election. What is more, it is on the basis of a promise that might be kept two elections hence. That's the proposition that they have signed up to. I am particularly disappointed by those senators from Centre Alliance, who, in many respects, have sought to come into this chamber and argue their case, particularly in defence of people in manufacturing areas and various others, on the basis they stand between the political parties. That is what they claim. Senator Xenophon used to say that all the time. He would not have agreed to a guillotine of this nature. He would certainly not have agreed to a guillotine of this nature while claiming to be the centre force without talking to both sides in this chamber. But what has happened is that an ambush has been inflicted upon this chamber, an ambush on the Labor Party and the Greens. Of course, Senator Storer has been excluded, locked out from even putting a point of view about the importance of protecting the revenue of this Commonwealth, $140 billion worth of revenue, in circumstances where the very wealthy in this country are getting a decided advantage from a very conservative government seeking to undermine the fundamental principles of a social democratic arrangement in regard to the provision of the funding of essential services in this country, such as education and health—the services that Centre Alliance say they're very interested in. Can you imagine if we talked about the shipbuilding industry and pulled a stunt like this, an ambush like this, without ever talking to the opposition? Can you imagine the consequences for the people of this country? It is $140 billion worth of expenditure, over what are now going to be several election cycles, in which we'll see some people get a minimal tax arrangement whereby the very wealthy get a $7,000 tax benefit, which the government think is going to provide them with an electoral advantage, because of the circumstances of two elections hence. Frankly, I don't believe the people of this country are going to buy that argument. They're not going to buy it, because they know that this government is out of touch. They understand just how incredibly arrogant this government is. This is the merchant banker's view of politics. This is the view of Australian society from the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. This is not the view that protects the health services of this country, protects the schools of this country, protects the universities of this country, ensures that our pensioners have the necessary wherewithal to enjoy a decent standard of living. This is the sort of government that rends the social fabric of this country asunder. This is the sort of government we're seeing, which is actually driving deep hostility into the Australian people by making it clear to the Australian people that the politics and economics of this country do not work for ordinary people. They work for the very wealthy. They work for those with power and privilege. (Time expired) 16:51 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I just have to take a second to compose myself from my laughter at hearing that last speech. Senator Carr is lecturing the chamber and lecturing the crossbenchers about the time management of this very important piece of legislation. He and the Greens political party continue to express outrage at how they could be restricted in the debate they have on this bill. I've been in this chamber for a while and, regrettably, I sat through the Labor years, the six dark years of Labor in charge. Do you know, Madam Deputy President, in the Labor years we had 188 bills through this parliament guillotined with the support of the Greens political party—188 bills, most of them with not even one word spoken on them, not one word. We were required to vote in a sausage machine style on 188 bills the Labor Party put up in government, supported, I might say, by the Greens political party, who always are holier than thou. I had to compose myself. Everybody knows that Labor lie—that's becoming an accepted norm in this chamber and, in fact, right across Australia—but we now know that the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and their mates in the Greens political party knows no bounds whatsoever. They lecture the crossbenchers—they think they're still at the CFMEU union—and think that by shouting at them, bullying them and standing over them, as they do in a CFMEU meeting, they can bully the crossbenchers into submission and into agreeing with them. But they don't like it when we remind them of not one bill—important though this one bill is on taxation—but 188. Half of them were fairly routine; I'll accept that. The other half were very important bills, and they were guillotined by the Labor Party without proper debate. Senator McGrath interjecting— Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 There were 53, as my colleague Senator McGrath says, in one week—53 bills guillotined in one week, and many of them with not even a word. The Labor Party are complaining that, with this bill, we're going to allow the leaders of the parties to speak. That's a privilege that we never got in the Labor Party's administration. Not even was the then opposition leader allowed to speak. If the Labor Party were serious about wanting to debate this bill, they would have done away with the last three hours of time absolutely wasted on having procedural motions on which they called for a division every time, every time losing about ten minutes that we could have used to actually have the debate that they're now complaining they're not going to have time for. The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking—188 bills guillotined, most of them without one word being spoken. We could have had two hours of debate by now. We would have had to interrupt it for—and I hope you'll listen carefully—what will be a wonderful speech by my colleague from Queensland Senator Stoker. You may learn something. I hope you listen intently, because I know Senator Stoker's speech will be enlightening. If you take some notice of it, you'll be better senators on that side. I'm very much looking forward to Senator Stoker's speech. But again can I point out—as I say, it is a struggle for me to compose myself—the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party in complaining about a limited time for a debate when they've wasted three hours this afternoon— Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 and when, in their time in government, 188 bills—53 times in one week—were guillotined without so much as a word being spoken. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 247871 It is well known that I hang on every word of Senator Macdonald's. I can't hear him, and I am only seated six or seven people away. This is a workplace health and safety issue when they're all going at once! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Macdonald has concluded. 16:56 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Can I just say, Senator Macdonald, that I'd much rather be associated with the CFMEU than I would with the latest Liberal Party meeting, where you had thugs abusing and threatening older women. What a disgrace! Don't you guys come in here and tell us what thugs you think the union movement are. You can't even go to a Liberal Party meeting without being abused in Australia these days. Can I just say: the debacle of the last two hours, where we've been denied the ability to do our job, is atrocious. Our job here is not to rubber stamp. We are not here— An incident having occurred in the gallery— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, please resume your seat. Could the person who took that photo please delete it. It's against the standing orders to take photos in the chamber unless you're a media person. You need to delete the photo. Thank you. Senator Abetz N26 I'm sure it wasn't of Catryna! Senator BILYK HZB Senator Abetz, you've just offended me there! Why would it not have been of me? Can I say, though, that the last nearly two hours have proven, time and time again, that the government do not want to be held accountable. They do not want people to know what is in that tax package. They don't want people to understand. There is no rush, because it's a refund anyway. People have got until June or July 2019. There is no rush. For you guys to come in here all of a sudden and say it's a rush is just a joke. Of course, we're here to take note of answers in question time. The answer we are to take note of is the answer from Minister Cash to the question from Senator Carr. Once again, what the government demonstrated in relation to the question about 8,000 Telstra workers losing their jobs was that it just doesn't care. The answer talked about causing the economy to 'prosper and grow', but under this out-of-touch government Australians are suffering. They're suffering from stagnant wages, rising insecurity in employment, soaring costs of living and cuts to penalty rates. The mechanism that the government's put into place time and time and time again is to ensure that wages are kept low and that workers lose conditions. Both Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison are more concerned with ensuring tax cuts for millionaires than they are about doing anything to help workers, especially those 8,000 workers at Telstra. The government has made its feeling towards Telstra workers known, and, can I say, it is pretty disappointing. When the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, Mr Paul Fletcher, was asked this morning about the 8,000 job losses, his response was, 'These things happen.' It's hard to imagine a more callous response to 8,000 job losses than a minister in the Turnbull government shrugging his shoulders and saying, 'Well, these things happen.' I'm pretty sure those 8,000 families don't consider that these things just happen. It's clear that the government's got no sympathy and no real understanding of what happens when thousands of families and the communities around those families need to deal with 8,000 job losses. I've seen what happens with job losses, and it's not happy, let me tell you. It's distressing. It causes great personal and economic toll. It's not pleasant to watch. It's certainly not pleasant to be part of. The government should be watching and helping, not just shrugging their shoulders. Perhaps, if Mr Fletcher and Mr Turnbull don't believe the government has any power to do any good when events like this happen, they shouldn't have the responsibility of being in government. I'm not yet aware of the magnitude of the job losses for Tasmania, but back in 2015 Telstra announced 38 job losses in Tasmania as part of another round of 1,400 national job losses, so I expect that the 8,000 jobs that are going will have an impact in Tasmania. That will be a massive blow, of course, to the Tasmanian community, including to regional Tasmania, which you guys, especially the new Nationals senator, should be a bit concerned about. It's absolutely clear you guys don't care about regional Tasmania. Your policies are focused on the Sydney millionaires, Mr Turnbull's friends and neighbours, and you know that. We've got a Prime Minister that told a 60-year-old aged-care worker from the north-west coast of Tasmania he could do better and he could get a better job. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace! What I want to know is: what is Mr Turnbull's measurement— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Pursuant to order, business is interrupted to allow for the first speech of Senator Stoker. I ask senators to observe the traditional courtesies for a first speech. Senator Bilyk interjecting— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk! I was interrupting business and, while I am speaking, I am asking all senators—including those on my right; I could not pick their voices—to remain silent. Can we please interrupt business pursuant to order to allow Senator Stoker to complete her first speech. Senator Bilyk? Senator Bilyk HZB I just want to point out, Mr President, that if Senator McKenzie thinks making finger actions at— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk, please resume your seat. FIRST SPEECH 70 FIRST SPEECH 17:02 The PRESIDENT I0Q I ask senators to remember the traditional courtesies for a first speech and to observe them. 17:02 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Australians don't trust politicians. It's a universal truth. In fact, Australians are losing faith across the four sectors of the economy—government, media, corporate and non-government organisations. But for my new role as senator for Queensland it is concerning—most concerning—that people's trust in Australia's institution of government, which has delivered peace and stability in this country for more than 100 years, is among the lowest globally. Is this scepticism a mere reflection of our cultural resistance to authority? No, I don't think so. The decline over the past years reflects a deeper malaise. Former Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies said in October 1954: Democracy is the greatest system of government yet devised by man; but it has its weaknesses and its dangers. So far from lessening the responsibilities of the individual, it magnifies them. When one man was the ruler, it was no doubt a matter for thankfulness that he should be wise and honest and competent. But now that we are rulers, we must all seek to be as wise and honest and competent as honest effort can make us. Menzies recognised the shared responsibility we have to engage with the Australian people honestly, to have the difficult conversations about policy and the future direction of this country. I agree that honest engagement is how we rebuild the trust with the Australian people. Over the past 100 years, we have put more trust than ever in the state to manage those times of our lives which are challenges—unemployment, sickness, disability and old age. These were all taken care of by the family in the past but are now firmly problems for the state. This becomes particularly sad when you read news reports of people passing away in their homes and no-one realising until the mailbox is overflowing. Our robust self-reliance, so evident in our history, is slowly dissipating and is being replaced by an attitude of dependency where government is not the place of last resort to get assistance but the starting point. The government can't be the answer to all problems, nor should it be. If it is the answer then you've got a problem with your question. The loss of individual self-reliance makes our society weaker. When the government automatically steps in, the role of the family is changed. It's not simply about money, because, if it were, the only impact would be on the budget bottom line. Government intervention diminishes the role and expectations of family. This in turn removes shared bonds and experiences and starves families of moments that build love and trust. These moments teach us compassion, respect and gratitude. The size of our social security budget is often cause for an impersonal and often half-hearted debate about its sustainability and who is going to pay for it. The use of services once intended to be one's last resort for moments of vulnerability in life but which are now seen as standard entitlements have seen it balloon well beyond the point of being sustainable. The bigger, more troubling consequence is the disconnect of individuals from their families and the broader social networks that once provided a real safety net in times of need. We as a society have outsourced these responsibilities now to the government. It's the result of excessive intervention and one of the most compelling arguments I can think of for smaller government. It's not possible to outsource love or the bonds of trust and respect that are built through helping one another through difficulty. Working together through these moments is what turns us from being mere relations into a family. Outsourcing them denies us the chance to experience and become the best community, the best family and the best of humanity. Caring for older family members is difficult, but nothing can replace the relationship and memories that are built by being there when they need it most. It's not always possible for this to occur; I acknowledge that. But, wherever it can, it should be our choice. Every time we help our child with their homework or be stern when it would be easier to give in, we don't just complete a task. We build a bond of trust and respect, preparing them to succeed in school and life. A large part of the problem with Australian schools' education performance isn't the lack of resources. Spending on school education has never been higher. But it is, at least in part, the lack of effort of some parents and what they put into their children's readiness for school. When I hear a teacher lament that children in their class are starting school without toilet training, I think of this disconnect. Hardworking and dedicated teachers are saying they just can't get the parents of a struggling child to spend some time with them, helping to get their reading up to scratch. It's sad. Better resources for schools are no replacement for a parent's interest in their child's education. The content of education now covers matters that were once—and I think should continue to be—matters for parents. Moral and social matters that connect to people's religious and political views are matters for family alone. Part of the reason I put my name forward to serve in this parliament is I believe the work of this parliament should align with the interests of families, especially children. My mum and dad, whom I acknowledge in the gallery, did everything they could to give my sister and I every opportunity in life, even when it was hard for them to do so. But the times they were strict made us better. The times they pushed us to be our best were worth it. The times we were silly built our sense of fun. Now as a wife and mother to three beautiful girls I, and my husband, try to do the same. Every family will manage the strains of raising and educating children, while working to provide an income, differently. That is as it should be. So, while child care should be available and affordable for those who need it, so too should we value those families who choose to make the sacrifices needed for a parent to stay at home. One way of valuing that sacrifice would be to tax families as a unit rather than as individuals. If there is one principle that best serves the differing needs of all Australians, it is liberty. There is a core of liberty in every individual with which no-one can or should interfere—liberty of conscience, of thought and feeling. Of almost equal importance is the right to express it. Government is ill-equipped to promote human happiness; this can come only from within the individual. It is why small government delivers the most benefit to the most people. It is the one factor that is the most essential to the development of humanity in its richest diversity. I'm not speaking about diversity in the sense of finding some immutable characteristic like your sex or skin colour to justify being treated with a privilege over others, or to claim some kind of special victimhood. Rather, it is a deep appreciation of the different skills and talents we all bring to life, and the ways in which freedom allows us to develop and harness those gifts. I'm a proud conservative, but we conservatives are misunderstood. Many think we are preoccupied with money and economics, while the left is about people and kindness. As Goldwater put it: Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being— sifting them into economic classes and demanding that they progress. Conservatives take account of the whole person, seeing him or her as both an economic creature and, more importantly, a spiritual creature whose individuality, creativity and very essence matter. Many talk about the needs of the common man and woman, but the conservative knows that we are not an undifferentiated mass. The very best of our history and development came from the initiative and ambitions of uncommon men and women. Our human differences are our strength. Ultimately, what defines us as a nation is equality of opportunity—the right to aspire to be the best versions of ourselves. That's different to equality of outcome, which can never be more than an empty promise: impossible to deliver, and unsatisfying even if we could do it. An important facet of freedom of thought is freedom of religion. It is deeply troubling to have so many examples to point to that suggest this freedom is under attack in our culture. If we fail to defend people's right to believe and to practice their faith, we deny our nation its moral bedrock. Tolerance must cut both ways. In the twisted name of tolerance, freedom of speech is also under fire. Before I was even sworn in, I was tagged by members of the opposing party as having engaged in hate speech. Those who know me well might find that funny. My crime was to have said that the measure of a society is how it treats those who cannot speak for themselves: the aged, the ill, people with a disability, children and the unborn. This is a prime illustration of just how wrong-headed the issue of speech has become in this country. Make no mistake: the right to freedom of speech—whether those ideas are wrong or right—is fundamental to a free society and a functioning democracy. Cut it off, and we starve ourselves of the refinement of ideas needed for us to flourish. I am proud to be a part of a government that has made it a priority to reduce the income and corporate tax burden, because I firmly believe that lower taxes will deliver a better standard of living to all Australians, particularly by creating work opportunities for those who are currently struggling with unemployment. Youth unemployment in outback Queensland sits at 54.2 per cent, but there are some in this parliament who would block job creation. It's not rocket science: reduced corporate taxes lead to higher investment, investment leads to more job creation, and the tightening of the employment market drives wages up. Similarly, reduced income tax means more money in the pockets of Australians and, when spent, stimulating demand. There is more we can do to increase productivity. Industrial relations reform is something our nation desperately needs and which the conservative side of politics should promote. If we want employers to give a person on the margins of the employment market a go—even when to do so might be a leap of faith—we need to support them to do so by removing the disincentive of punitive unfair dismissal laws. We need to be prepared to take the difficult case for increased productivity to the community, which offsets the appeal of raising minimum wages and penalty rates, because they both reduce job opportunities for those most in need. I understand that telling lower paid workers they will take home more money today is popular; it's easy. But we need to be honest enough to say frankly that each time we do, we deny a job to another person desperately in need of one. The unions rail against casualisation or layoffs, but it is the direct product of the policies for which they advocate. We must also be honest enough to say that it is the productivity gains that will sustainably deliver real wage growth for those who need it most. We need to introduce competition to workplace representation. Teachers, nurses and trades usually join unions to access insurance and representative services, not to gain a political affiliation. They don't trust union representation in a bargaining process, where the unions arrange kickbacks for themselves and forget or sell out the needs of the workers. A simple way to reduce these abuses of member interests is to end union monopolies. Many workers value workplace representation, but they don't want politicised workplace representation. Let the market give them the choice. It is the height of hypocrisy that the Left in this country rails against big business but supports the continued tax-free status of unions, which have become multimillion-dollar businesses with sophisticated commercial operations. It is pure irony that those selling the socialist dream have taken so well to capitalism. When a union is selling insurance, investing, selling education services and running all manner of start-ups, they should be taxed like the business they are. We owe the Australian taxpayer no less. And we must never give up on the principle that government should provide the lightest possible burden on the entrepreneurial spirit of Australians. We should test every piece of legislation, every regulation against the standards of necessity and efficacy until red tape and green tape no longer hold back the projects needed for Queensland and Australia to grow and prosper. The Senate is a special place for me because I am a federalist. I have had the privilege of serving and learning from one of this country's finest federalists, Ian Callinan. It was quite an apprenticeship. I believe it is the responsibility of the people who sit in this chamber to represent their home states with vigour while resisting the centralising tendency of the Commonwealth. Australia has a Constitution that is beautiful in its simplicity. It doesn't seek to make grandiose gestures and it doesn't seek to make people feel good; instead, it carefully sets up the machinery of federal government. Importantly, it treats all Australians as one. Yet it doesn't operate at present in the way that our founding fathers intended. The challenge for the future is to recalibrate it for accountability. A good start—and one for which I'm prepared to work—would be to make the states responsible for raising the funds that they spend, ending once and for all their opportunity to simply blame the Commonwealth for their every woe. There are 11 other senators here who will agree with me about my chosen home state. Queensland is a magnificent place—from the cape to Coolangatta and Cameron Corner. It has beautiful landscapes: the beach, the rainforest, the bush and the desert. We are rich in minerals, leaders in agriculture and an exporter of education. It has some of our nation's worst roads, and, like my colleagues, I'll be fighting for them relentlessly. I promise you that the Bruce Highway north of Bundaberg is never far from my mind. But what I love most about my home town of Brisbane is that you can walk the streets and chat with strangers like you were in any tiny country town. Its warmth makes it a wonderful place to call home and a wonderful place to raise a family. I look forward to working to provide as much opportunity as I can to Queensland's families for years to come. I've been warmly and generously greeted by my colleagues, and I thank all of you who have attended today. I acknowledge my predecessor, the now High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, former Senator Brandis. While he and I have some philosophical differences, we both came from practice as a barrister and we both have a deep respect for the rule of law. As Attorney-General he served this nation well, and I wish him the very best for his next chapter. One does not get to be the 99th woman to work in this place without the assistance of many. I can't name them all, but I'll start with my family. Both the Fell side and the Stoker clan do so much for Adam and I. Friends Barry, Ron, David, Kate, Chris, Vicki and Bernard deserve a special mention. Richard, I value your counsel very much. Wendy, you have been my mentor for years, and yet you are so humble you probably wouldn't know it. Matt and Julia, you two are very special friends. You've put an end to the old saying: 'If you want a friend in politics, you should get a dog.' I don't know where we'd be without you. This is the hard bit. I say to my three lovely girls—Mary, Jane and Emma—you won't understand today until many years down the track. Know that I endeavour to show you by example that no path is closed to you and that you can and should pursue your wildest dreams knowing that they are all possible. Adam is my wonderful husband. I'll always be grateful that on that January morning I showed up to campaign with a bunch of Young Liberals, out of embarrassment—I was looking absolutely dreadful; it was the day after a wedding—I paired up to doorknock with the one person in the room I didn't know. It has turned out to be the best decision of my life. I've been a private barrister and a public prosecutor, but I got my start sorting fittings in my family's plumbing business. It's the story shared by so many families who aspire, generation by generation, to improve their lot. I'm proud of that. It reflects so many Australians that I hope to represent well and so many of the Queensland LNP members who have entrusted me with the gift of their endorsement. I'm a product of the grassroots of that membership, and I always will be. I thank every member for that honour. For as long as I have the privilege of serving God, my Queen, the values of the Liberal National Party and, most importantly, the people of Queensland, I will do so to the best of my ability, listening sincerely and aiming always to stand with fortitude even in our most difficult debates so that I might contribute to restoring the trust of Australians in our political institutions. The task could not be expressed better than it was by former US President John F Kennedy: With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 73 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Employment 73 17:30 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia After a speech like that, it's fantastic to come and talk about smaller government and lower, fairer and simpler taxes. The things we just heard from Senator Stoker are about the importance of individual responsibility and the importance of creating equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes, and one of the key things is reward for effort. If people take the risk of starting a small business, or if people take the opportunity before them to get educated and to move into employment, they deserve the reward that comes from that. The criticisms from those opposite about this tax package go to the fact that they say it's not progressive, but can I repeat the figures that Senator Cormann, the finance minister, mentioned during his answers—and we are here, at the end of the day, to take note of answers. Under this package, for somebody earning $30,000, a tax cut is worth 8.3 per cent, whereas for someone on $200,000 it's 0.2 per cent. The top 20 per cent of taxpayers currently are paying 60 per cent of the income tax that is received by government. When this package is implemented in full, the top 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers will still be paying 60 per cent of the income tax that's received by the government. So, what we're doing, by implementing these three phases and by trying to address things like bracket creep, is to still keep Australia as a place that has a tax system that is fair but to make it simpler and to lower the level of tax. One of the fallacies in this argument is that people love to talk about the tax rate that people are paying. But, by the time you look at what they pay for each level, what's excluded and then the various levels coming up, for the two examples that Senator Cormann used before, if you take the tax that is paid as a function of the income earned—as opposed to having all the steps but just as a function of income earned—for the $30,000 income, tax of $2,200 is around 7.3 per cent. For the person on $200,000, who's paying $67,000 of tax, that's 33.5 per cent of income. So, if you look at it in the overall picture and put the right context around it, you quickly understand why the top 20 per cent of taxpayers are paying 60-odd per cent of the income tax that Australia then relies on for things like schools, hospitals, education and funding our Defence Force. The fallacy that is put forward by those opposite is to take a percentage figure without applying the full context. When you look at those figures—the fact that somebody who is earning $200,000 is paying $67,000 of tax and that equates to 33.5 per cent in overall terms of the income that they have earned—what that shows is that they are paying substantially more in both percentage and dollar figure terms than someone on a lower income. If you then also take into account that the majority of low-income earners in Australia pay no net tax because of the churn and the things that are handed back, what you see is that this system that the government is looking to put in place is, in fact, a tax package for lower, fairer and simpler taxes. Why is that important? It's important because that's at the heart of a strong economy. That's at the heart of an economy that means that government will have the money that it needs to pay for the services that we are here to provide for our community. As Senator Stoker said, in an ideal world the government would do only what people are unable to do for themselves. But where we do need to provide services we need to be able to afford it, and under the policies of this government we have finally got back to the point where we are no longer borrowing to pay for those daily costs of government. Because of the debt run up by the Labor government under Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, for years now Australia has been borrowing money to pay its daily living costs. It's only the good financial management of the coalition government, under Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison, that has returned us to the point where we are no longer borrowing money. This package is for lower, fairer and simpler taxes to benefit Australia's future. 17:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously, quite a few hours have now passed since question time, where we kicked off by asking questions about the very sad announcement by Telstra overnight that it would be cutting 8,000 jobs from its Australian workforce. This is yet another absolute tragedy of massive job losses that we're seeing in Australia under the stewardship of the Turnbull government. What's probably even more tragic is that, as the day has unfolded and various ministers have been asked about this in question time, in press conferences and elsewhere, consistently we've heard from Turnbull government ministers classic laissez faire, hands-off responses: 'This is a commercial decision,' or, 'It's a matter for Telstra,' or, most tragically of all, from Minister Paul Fletcher, 'Things happen.' As I say, it is another classic example of how this government approaches managing the economy and ensuring that Australians have good, secure, well-paid jobs. None of us can forget the approach that the government took in the previous term in relation to the car industry, when not only were they quite happy to stand on the sidelines and watch the car industry in this country be closed down, at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs, but they actively cheered it on. They actively encouraged and dared some of the biggest car-makers in the world to shut down the industry, and—what do you know?—they did. We kissed goodbye to tens of thousands of good, well-paid, secure jobs that in many cases had been held in certain families for generations. And it's happening again today with the loss of these 8,000 jobs in Telstra. It wasn't until this announcement was made that I found out that funding for the very thing these Telstra workers, and the car industry workers before them, need most from government—labour market support to assist them to find new work, retrain and move into new occupations—was actually cut in this year's federal budget. In this year's budget, the federal government, the Turnbull government, has taken money out of its labour market support programs, which are used as structural adjustment packages to assist workers in industries experiencing large numbers of retrenchments, just like these today. Not only do we have a government that's prepared to just wash its hands of any responsibility and say, 'This is just a commercial decision; things happen; nothing we can do,' just like it did with the car industry; it's actually making it harder for these workers to find new jobs by taking money out of its own labour market support programs. It's another classic example of this government's approach to jobs and the lack of concern it has for working people. Telstra are now under an immediate obligation to start consulting with their workforce and unions about managing this change for as many employees as possible. We've seen this in other industries, and I'm thinking particularly of banking. Some of the big banks announced massive job losses recently, and what has become clear to me, particularly through a Senate inquiry I'm involved in, is that some of the banks are not consulting their workforces or unions at all about what other opportunities there might be within these large organisations to move people into different roles. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, at the same time as cutting these 8,000 jobs, Telstra were actually looking at creating other jobs in other parts of its business. It may well be that some of these 8,000 people can simply be retrained and redeployed into existing roles rather than being thrown out on the scrap heap, which is what Telstra seems to be planning to do. The government spend a lot of time crowing about jobs growth, but they never want to own up and they never want to front up when big companies are doing the wrong thing by their workforce, like what we are seeing from Telstra today. The government never talk about the fact that there are well over a million people in Australia who are underemployed, who are not able to find the amount of work which they are looking for. They don't want to talk about the rising level of insecure work that is hurting so many Australians right around the country. They never want to acknowledge research from groups like the Centre for Future Work, which was able to show recently that, for the first time in Australian history, now we have less than half of Australians who are employed working in permanent, full-time positions with paid entitlements like sick leave and annual leave. The government constantly want to deny that we have a crisis of insecure work, when the facts show that more and more people are surviving on casual work and part-time work when they want more and are finding it difficult to feed their families. The government have to do more. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Defence Procurement 74 17:40 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Patrick today relating to the Future Submarine project. The Royal Australian Navy Future Submarine project will be a critical part of Australia's defence capability through much of this century. It is a project of huge budget significance. On 20 May, Defence gave evidence at estimates that the Future Submarine design and build cost would be $50 billion in constant dollars and, additionally, sustainment costs would also be of the order of $50 billion through to 2080. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute have calculated the estimates figures used by Defence and basically state that they equate to a design and build cost of $79 billion and a sustainment cost of $124 billion in out-turn dollars. These are very large numbers. In fact, they are bigger numbers than the three-stage tax cuts that are being talked about today. Yet we have the whole parliament focused on that, and almost nothing is happening in relation to this project in terms of transparency. This huge defence project has been determined through very opaque decision-making and with barely a fraction of the scrutiny it deserves. The competitive evaluation process was conducted under a high degree of security, leading to the government's April 2016 decision to select France's Naval Group as the designer of Australia's 12 submarines. What I reveal today is that the bid of the German submarine builder TKMS, which was rejected by government, was very much lower than the $50 billion accepted by government. TKMS's offer was not $50 billion but $20 billion for 12 submarines built here in Australia. On 29 February 2016, TKMS wrote to the defence minister reaffirming their offer, and I quote, 'for a fixed maximum cost of no more than $20 billion for the project'. They had first made that $20 billion offer to Prime Minister Abbott in 2014 and reaffirmed it at the end of the competitive evaluation process when they were fully aware of the requirements for Australia's Future Submarine capabilities. The German government offered to allow an open-book audit of TKMS's price. I don't know whether the government took up that offer. Of course, the government chose to go another way. They may have been well advised to do so, but the reason for the government's Future Submarine decision remains secret. There has been media reporting that Defence officials considered the German submarines to be unsuitable for a range of technical reasons. It has also been speculated that Defence favoured the Naval Group submarine because there remains a long-term interest in the possible acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines sometime in the future. What is now clear, however, is that the government selected one option, Naval Group, that was $30 billion more expensive than another—that of TKMS. I'm sure that other senators in this place could offer suggestions about what to do with $30 billion. It could have been committed to other defence capabilities. You could almost double the Joint Strike Fighter fleet—in fact, you can double it for that $30 billion difference. It could well be spent on civil infrastructure, health, education services, investment in science and technology or other political focuses—tax cuts, for example. Whether rightly or wrongly, the government secretly accepted a very large opportunity cost. An extra $30 billion cost requires rigorous scrutiny and a great deal more transparency than has been forthcoming from the government or the defence department so far. Unless the Senate takes scrutiny of defence expenditure much more seriously, especially regarding these very large projects—for example, the Future Submarine and Future Frigates projects—then we will have failed in our duty and taxpayers will have been sold short. Question agreed to. NOTICES 75 NOTICES Presentation 75 BUSINESS 78 BUSINESS Rearrangement 78 17:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day no. 57 (Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017) be considered on Monday, 25 June 2018 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. NOTICES 78 NOTICES Postponement 78 COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Membership 78 17:46 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:46 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century—Select Committee— Appointed— Senator Siewert Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Di Natale, Hanson-Young, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Steele-John and Whish-Wilson Economics References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee’s inquiry into financial and tax practices of for-profit aged care providers Environment and Communications References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Rice for the committee’s inquiry into the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program Procedure—Standing Committee— Appointed—Senator Collins Selection of Bills—Standing Committee— Appointed—Senator Collins Question agreed to. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 79 Reference 79 17:47 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia At the request of Senator Griff, I move: That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2018: Possible regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food, including both the domestic manufacture and importation of pet food, with particular reference to: (a) the uptake, compliance and efficacy of the Australian Standard for the Manufacturing & Marketing of Pet Food (AS5812:2017); (b) the labelling and nutritional requirements for domestically manufactured pet food; (c) the management, efficacy and promotion of the AVA-PFIAA administered PetFAST tracking system; (d) the feasibility of an independent body to regulate pet food standards, or an extension of Food Standards Australia New Zealand's remit; (e) the voluntary and/or mandatory recall framework of pet food products; (f) the interaction of state, territory and federal legislation; (g) comparisons with international approaches to the regulation of pet food; and (h) any other related matters. 17:47 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government is aware of the growing level of public concern about the safety of Australian pet food. Minister Littleproud has already acted to seek state and territory support for review of the regulation of pet food in Australia in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, including the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia and the Australian Veterinary Association. The review will examine the effectiveness of current policy settings to ensure the safety of pet food in Australia, with a report back to jurisdictions at the Agriculture Ministers' Forum on any required action. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 79 MOTIONS World Haemochromatosis Week 79 17:48 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senators Bilyk and Sterle, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 4 June to 10 June 2018 was World Haemochromatosis Week, (ii) around 1 in 200 people of northern European origin have the genetic risk for haemochromatosis–or inherited iron overload disorder, (iii) haemochromatosis is often diagnosed too late, because early symptoms like fatigue and joint pain are often mistaken for other illnesses, (iv) haemochromatosis is potentially deadly if left untreated; and (b) urges all senators and members to raise awareness of haemochromatosis and promote to their constituents the importance of getting their iron levels checked. Question agreed to. Johnson, Mr Tori 80 17:49 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania At the request of Senator Smith, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that on 29 March 2018, the late Mr Tori Johnson was honoured by being posthumously awarded the Star of Courage (SC), Australia's second highest Australian Bravery Award, for displaying conspicuous courage during the armed siege at the Lindt Cafe in Sydney in December 2014; and (b) acknowledges the citation for the award, which states: On the 15th and 16th of December 2014 Mr Tori Johnson displayed conspicuous courage during an armed siege at the Lindt Cafe in Sydney. At approximately 8am on 15 December 2014, an armed gunman entered the Lindt Cafe and took 18 people hostage. The gunman directed Mr Johnson, the manager of the Lindt Cafe, to call 000 and say that all those in the cafe had been taken hostage by a man who was armed with a shotgun and explosives. The gunman instructed for the cafe's doors to be locked, as the ten patrons and eight staff became aware of their predicament. In response to the 000 call, police immediately cleared and secured the area around the cafe. Over the ensuing 16 and a half hours Mr Johnson instigated and maintained a rapport with the offender, pacifying him on many occasions without thought for his own safety. He relayed information to police and negotiators in a calm and rational manner which helped reassure the other hostages. Mr Johnson, whilst knowing the layout and exits of the cafe, chose not to take the opportunity to escape. He specifically remained with an elderly, less mobile, hostage even when she requested he leave without her when an opportunity to escape arose. As the situation inside the cafe deteriorated Mr Johnson was directly threatened. Without regard for his own safety he continued to calmly obey the gunman's demands in an attempt to protect the other hostages. At approximately 2 am Mr Johnson was placed in a kneeling position in front of the gunman—who fired and fatally wounded Mr Johnson. At this point tactical police raided the cafe which resulted in the death of the gunman. By his actions, Mr Johnson displayed conspicuous courage. Question agreed to. Asylum Seekers 80 17:49 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I move: That the Senate calls upon the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Dutton), to ensure that: (a) South African minorities targeted by hate crimes can seek asylum as easily as any other groups seeking asylum in Australia, and (b) if Australia is committed to a non-discriminatory immigration policy, those South African minorities are not discriminated against due to their skin colour. 17:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor will oppose this motion, because we see through Senator Bernardi's petty political games. Labor supports Australia's non-discriminatory migration program, which has been in place for decades. If people are facing persecution, regardless of where they are from or the colour of their skin, they are able to apply to Australia's humanitarian visa program and that application process will be assessed on its merits. Australia's protection obligations are clear and are set out in the Migration Act. Regrettably, the Minister for Home Affairs clearly feels differently. On 14 March 2018, the minister was asked specifically about South African farmers. He responded: … I think these people deserve special attention and we're certainly applying that special attention now. The minister clearly was calling for special attention—a different set of standards that would undermine Australia's non-discriminatory migration program. At Senate estimates, the minister's claims of special attention were defied by this own department, which said they were applying no additional requirements. 17:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM This motion contains a blatant straw-man immigration argument from conservatives, who long for a return to apartheid and the White Australia Policy. The Greens also call on the government to commit to a non-discriminatory immigration policy, not because we think white South African farmers are being discriminated against but because we know that underprivileged non-white people from the world's least developed countries are being discriminated against, because Australia does have a discriminatory migration policy. It is discrimination based on mode of arrival, which has the effect of discriminating against groups of people based on their wealth, their countries of origin and the colour of their skin. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bernardi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:56]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

32 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Williams, JR 36 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A 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 McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Immigration Detention 81 17:58 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was quoted in the Guardian as saying, "We don't believe that mandatory detention has the necessary result of stopping the boats"; (b) also notes that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Plibersek, said that detainees on Manus Island "should not be there, nor should the people on Nauru"; (c) further notes that the Member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, voted at the last ALP National Conference to oppose asylum seeker boat turn-backs, and in May this year told ABC radio "You can be tough on people smugglers without being weak on humanity"; (d) in addition, notes that the Member for Batman, Ms Kearney, said in her maiden speech on 21 May that "we must, as a priority, move the asylum seekers off Manus and Nauru"; (e) furthermore notes that the Member for Barton, Ms Burney, told Sky News on 23 May 2018, "I think there needs to be some sort of time limit" on offshore detention; and (f) calls upon the Australian Labor Party to make clear to the Australian public – and particularly the voters of Perth, Fremantle, Mayo, Longman and Braddon – whether it supports the federal government's border protection policies. 17:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor's policy on asylum seekers is clear. We will never let the people smugglers back in business. Labor believes in strong borders, offshore processing, regional resettlement and turnbacks when safe to do so, because we know it saves lives at sea. Every time people like Senator Bernardi or the Minister for Home Affairs lie about Labor's strong position on border protection, they are encouraging the people smugglers to restart their vile trade. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, please resume your seat. Senator Bernardi on a point of order? Senator Bernardi G0D I think it is unparliamentary to suggest that either a senator or a minister is lying. The PRESIDENT I0Q That, in my view, is correct. It would be helpful if you would withdraw the personal imputation, Senator Chisholm. Senator Kim Carr AW5 It's inconsistent with the facts! The PRESIDENT I0Q Certain words are unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw the personal imputation. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm has withdrawn. Please continue. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The mistruths from those opposite, including Senator Bernardi, continue. Manus Island and Nauru were set up as regional transit processing facilities but have become places of indefinite detention because of the failure of the Turnbull government to negotiate other third party resettlement options. Labor strongly supports the US refugee resettlement agreement and has called on the Turnbull government to work with the US to expedite the resettlement process. Labor has also called on the Turnbull government to accept New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees from Manus and Nauru, and to negotiate conditions similar to the US refugee arrangement. 18:00 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I seek leave to make a brief statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator BERNARDI G0D In response to what Senator Chisholm suggested, for the benefit of the people at home I say that this motion merely quotes from senior Labor figures where they're contradicting other public statements. I've sought for them to clarify what their position is in regard to border protection policies, because what the Labor leader, the Labor leadership hopeful, the Labor deputy leader and so forth say are not consistent with the facts that Labor are stating in this chamber today. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 854 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:02]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

42 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Di Natale, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hume, J Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Siewert, R Smith, DA Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR 24 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Singh, LM Smith, DPB Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M 3 PAIRS Bartlett, AJJ Lines, S Cormann, M Wong, P Sinodinos, A Polley,

[Question agreed to]

World Refugee Day 83 18:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I inform the chamber that Senator Griff will also sponsor this motion. and I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 866 standing in my name and the name of Senator Griff in the terms circulated. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Wednesday, 20 June 2018 is World Refugee Day 2018; (ii) yesterday, on 19 June, the UNHCR reported that 68.5 million people around the world had been forcibly displaced from their homes by the end of 2017, (iii) the UNHCR has also previously reported an annual average of 21.5 million people forcibly displaced by weather-related sudden onset hazards – such as floods, storms, wildfires, extreme temperature – each year since 2008, and (iv) in 2016: (A) Australia offered protection to 0.28 per cent of people seeking asylum around the world, and (B) Australia assisted 1.43 per cent of the 2.5 million refugees who had their status recognised or were resettled worldwide; and (b) agrees that refugees have contributed significantly to Australian communities and our multicultural society, and supports Australia showing global leadership in settling and supporting refugees. 18:05 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 In 2016-17 20,200 offshore humanitarian visas were granted by this coalition government. What the Greens failed to acknowledge is that this is Australia's largest offshore intake since the early 1980s. The number of special humanitarian places for people with immediate family links in Australia has risen 2,000 per cent from 503 places in 2012 under the Labor-Green government to 10,600 places in 2016-17 under the coalition. Humanitarian places now go to people assessed as the most vulnerable offshore with family in Australia, rather than to people smugglers. This motion is just another stunt by the Greens. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

35 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A 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 McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 2 PAIRS Polley, H Sinodinos, A Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

Chronic Disease 84 18:09 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes the launch today of Preventing Chronic Disease - How does Australia Score?, a score card produced by Prevention 1st, a campaign by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, the Public Health Association of Australia, Dementia Australia and the Consumers Health Forum of Australia; (b) notes that the scorecard rates Australia's progress on the World Health Organization's recommendations for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases; and in particular the progress in addressing the four key risk factors of tobacco use, alcohol consumption, nutrition and physical activity; (c) notes that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare describes chronic disease as Australia's greatest health challenge and that a third of this disease burden is preventable; (d) regrets the scorecard's findings that Australia's efforts rate as "poor" on three of the four risk factors – alcohol consumption, nutrition and physical activity; (e) recognises that failure to make progress in these areas is leading to, and will continue to exacerbate, an increase in preventable chronic illnesses including obesity, heart disease, diabetes and dementia; (f) condemns the government for dismantling the Australian National Preventive Health Agency and the flexible funds, cutting funding to prevention and public health programs and putting the quality of life and long term health of Australians at risk; and (g) calls on the government to: (i) actively engage in September's United Nations High-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (chronic disease) in New York and ensure Australia has ministerial representation; and (ii) urgently act to invest in preventive health measures and implement the recommendations of the Preventing Chronic Disease – How does Australia Score? scorecard. 18:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government is investing in the preventive health of Australians. In the budget we announced $77. 9 million for infant health. The government will ensure our children get the best possible start in life. This will lead to them becoming healthier adults with lower obesity levels and a reduced reliance on the health system in the long term. In addition, we have committed $39.5 million to extend the whooping cough vaccine to pregnant women and to provide $17.5 million for research into maternal health and the first 2,000 days of a child's life. These measures are complemented by investment of $56 million in public health and chronic disease grant programs and other preventive health measures, such as the Prime Minister's One Million Steps initiative with the Heart Foundation. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

36 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A 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 McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 2 PAIRS Polley, H Sinodinos, A Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

DOCUMENTS 86 DOCUMENTS Great Barrier Reef 86 Order for the Production of Documents 86 18:14 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, by no later than 9am on 27 June 2018, documents relating to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, generated since 1 July 2017 and held by: (a) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; and (b) the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 86 MOTIONS United Nations World Refugee Day 86 18:15 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 858 standing in the name of Senators Pratt, Singh and Carr relating to the United Nations World Refugee Day. I seek to amend '22 million refugees' to '25.4 million refugees'. Leave granted. Senator PRATT I0T I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) United Nations World Refugee Day is celebrated on 20 June 2018, (ii) Refugee Week, which runs from 17 June to 23 June is a time for refugees living in Australia to be seen, listened to and valued, (iii) the theme for Refugee Week 2018 is #WithRefugees, (iv) according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are currently nearly 25.4 million refugees worldwide and over half are under the age of 18, and (v) Australia is a country built on migration with refugees and migrants who have come to call Australia home, and have gone on to make invaluable contributions to our community; and (b) encourages people to use this Refugee Week as an opportunity to learn more about refugees and celebrate the rich diversity of refugees who now call Australia home. Question agreed to. Brain Cancer 86 18:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senators Bilyk and Griff, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the month of May was Brain Cancer Awareness Month, (ii) brain cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australians under the age of 40, (iii) brain cancer kills more Australian children than any other disease, yet 90 per cent of Australians are unaware of this fact, and (iv) the five-year survival rate for brain cancer in Australia is 22 per cent, and has barely improved in the past 30 years; and (b) thanks philanthropic organisations such as Brain Tumour Alliance Australia and Cure Brain Cancer Foundation for their continued efforts in improving Australians' awareness of the aforementioned facts about brain cancers and tumours; (c) supports the Parliamentary Friendship Group, the Brain Cancer and Tumour Awareness Group in its efforts to raise awareness amongst senators and members of the facts about brain cancers and tumours; and (d) urges the Australian Government to take action to improve the survival rate for brain cancer. Question agreed to. Feral Animals 87 18:16 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the agricultural industry is vital to the Australian economy, (ii) farming families face hardships such as drought, floods, fires and damage from feral animals, and (iii) volunteer and professional hunters are a key aspect in dealing with feral animals; and (b) calls on the government to: (i) direct the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to investigate the cost that feral animals have on the Australian agricultural industry, and (ii) make public the findings of the above-mentioned study. I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ANNING 273829 We often hear the howls of outrage from inner-city elites when a tree is cleared or water is drawn from a river for agriculture. However, the unheard voices are those of the farmers, who on a daily basis not only fight the inhospitable environment but also battle the scourge of feral pests. In addition to their severe impact on agriculture—damaging crops and stockfeed and using limited water supplies—feral pigs, for example, are also exterminating the turtle population in North Queensland by feeding on turtle eggs before they hatch. Many turtles eat jellyfish in huge numbers, and declining turtle populations have contributed to exponential increases in the population of lethal jellyfish, such as Irukandji. As a result, these are quietly moving down the Queensland coast. Let us not wait until the Irukandji reaches the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast and destroys the tourist industry before the government steps in and gets rid of the pigs. 18:17 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government strongly supports our agricultural sector, and managing established pest animals and weeds is a key priority. The Australian government has an agreed Australian Pest Animal Strategy in place and funds a range of different programs to improve the tools, technology, skills and knowledge that farmers and the community need to tackle established pest animals. In addition, the coalition government provided $20 million to fund the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions to improve invasive species management. Information about the cost of feral animals on the Australian agricultural industry is available in a report by the New South Wales Natural Resources Commission and the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions called Cost of pest animals in NSW and Australia, 2013-14 on the PestSmart website. A relevant link to the report has been provided to Senator Anning's office. 18:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Whilst Labor supports the intention of Senator Anning's motion for the government to undertake a study to investigate the cost that feral animals have on Australian agricultural industries, the Senate should also note that this is only one part of the feral animal issue. If the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is directed to undertake such a study, the terms of reference for the study must be developed with stakeholders and other research institutions to ensure that not only is the impact cost identified but strategies and associated costs on how to deal with the impact of feral animals form part of the study. 18:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RICE 155410 The Greens support further work being done on the impact of pest animals on the Australian environment and ways to manage pest animals. Any work or studies that are done should be done with proper terms of reference that are developed in consultation with experts and the terms of reference shouldn't just cover the cost impact on the agricultural industry but the much larger impact that pest animals have on environmental and ecological communities. Further, we note that Senator Anning's comment about hunters being a key aspect in dealing with feral animals needs to be considered in the context of other mechanisms and ways of managing feral animals and that you cannot just deal with feral animals through the use of hunting. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Future Submarine Project 88 Order for the Production of Documents 88 18:20 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) in respect of the cost estimates of the Future Submarine Project: (A) the Auditor-General has stated in the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) report that the Defence White Paper 2009 signalled an approximate spend of $50 billion dollars on the construction and sustainment of the Future Submarine over its life, (B) the 2016 Defence White Paper Integrated Investment Plan indicated the future submarine design and build would be $50 billion on an out-turned price basis, (C) on 20 May 2018, Defence gave evidence at estimates that the future submarine design and build cost will be $50 billion in constant dollars and, additionally, sustainment costs will be $50 billion in constant dollars, and (D) on 6 June 2018, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute indicated that the estimates figures used by Defence equated to a design and build cost of $79 billion and a sustainment costs of $124 billion in out-turned dollars, (ii) as part of its CEP response DCNS (now Naval Group) provided an estimate of the cost of an all-Australian build of eight pre-concept design submarines and a cost of sustainment over a 40 year period, (iii) the submarine CEP has concluded Naval Group is the strategic partner, (iv) there are no other strategic partner commercial contenders, (v) pricing offered was for a pre-concept design submarine which does not accurately reflect the price of the final design, which will be settled in 2022, and (vi) knowledge of the CEP offered price is a valuable marker for future scrutiny of this vital defence project by the Senate; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, by no later than 12pm on 26 June 2018, the following from the Final Cost Estimate Template that DCNS submitted in response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process: (i) the summary sheet total "Australian Build Price", and (ii) the total sustainment cost from year 1 to year 40 including labour, material and other costs. 18:20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The information requested is commercially sensitive, as it constitutes pricing proposed by Naval Group as part of its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process. To release any of the pricing proposed by participants in the process would undermine their position in relation to future tenders. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 89 CONDOLENCES Funde, Mr Eddie 89 18:21 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Mr Eddie Funde, the first diplomat to be appointed to the African National Congress's Mission to Australasia and the Pacific, died suddenly last month, (ii) Mr Funde built a broad-based grassroots anti-apartheid movement across Australasia and New Zealand made up of unions, student groups and a range of community groups that engaged in a boycott and sanctions campaign, (iii) when Nelson Mandela in 1990 visited Australia and stood on the Opera House steps and was welcomed by thousands of Australians, Mr Funde said it was a highlight of his career, and (iv) Mr Funde successfully won financial support from the federal government for the Special Assistance Program for South Africa and Namibia, and development and aid assistance for exiles from South Africa, and (b) recognises that Mr Funde was a hard working diplomat and effective campaigner against apartheid and for a just future for South Africa; and (c) conveys its condolences to Mr Funde's wife Nosizwe, and their two children, Themba and Vuyo. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 89 MOTIONS Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder 89 18:22 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) encompasses a range of conditions that can occur in an individual with prenatal exposure to alcohol and is the largest cause of non-genetic, at birth brain damage in Australia, (ii) FASD can result in learning difficulties, anger management and behavioural issues, impaired speech and muscle coordination and physical abnormalities in the heart, lungs and other organs—the effects can range from mild impairment to serious disability, (iii) in 2012, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs considered the issue in depth in its report FASD: The Hidden Harm ("the report"), which made 19 recommendations, many of which have not been implemented—including recommendations on alcohol health warning labels. (iv) the report stated, at paragraph 2.56, that "[w]hile frequency and quantity of consumption clearly increase the risks to the fetus, research suggests that alcohol at any time can endanger the development of the fetus", (v) according to the 2016 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 44 per cent of women consumed alcohol while pregnant, (vi) alcohol health warning labels are an important public health measure because they promote health messages at point of sale and at point of consumption, (vii) in 2010, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council undertook a comprehensive review of food labelling—the 2011 review, titled 'Labelling Logic', recommended Australia adopt mandatory alcohol pregnancy warning labels, (viii) on 9 December 2011, the Forum on Food Regulation agreed to allow the alcohol industry two years to introduce voluntary pregnancy labels before 'regulating for this change'—in July 2014 this was extended for an additional two years, (ix) there has been no action taken to establish a labelling standard that details the size, location and wording of the warning label creating an inconsistency in labels being applied to alcohol products, and (x) on 19 April 2018, the Brewers Association of Australia called for "pregnancy warning labels to be adopted across all alcohol products as a matter of urgency" and stated that, after six years of voluntary pregnancy labelling, too many producers "have been too slow to do the right thing"; (b) recognises that industry, government, the medical profession and the community must commit to tackling FASD collaboratively; and (c) calls on the government to: (i) implement all of the recommendations made in the report, and (ii) support prominent mandatory alcohol pregnancy warning labels and task Food Standards Australia New Zealand to undertake the necessary regulatory process. 18:22 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Thank you. The Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum is currently developing a national foetal alcohol spectrum disorder strategic action plan through the guidance of the national drug strategy committee. The plan is intended to provide a cohesive evidence based approach to strengthen Australia's efforts in preventing and diagnosing the disorder and better supporting those living with and affected by the disorder. It is expected that the plan will be finalised by the end of the year. The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation is currently considering implementing mandatory pregnancy warning labels on alcoholic beverages. Targeted consultation concluded on 14 June, and analysis of submissions is currently underway. A final decision on mandating pregnancy warning labels is likely to occur during an out-of-session meeting of the forum later in the year. Question agreed to. Marine Plastic Pollution 90 18:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm so glad we got to this one today. I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the European Union signed an Oceans Plastics Charter at the recent 2018 G7 summit, (ii) that the United Kingdom, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Ghana have joined the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance, an agreement between member states to tackle plastic pollution collectively, (iii) the passage of UN Environment Assembly Resolution to Tackle Plastic Waste & Marine Litter in the December 2017 Nairobi meeting, (iv) that the United Kingdom Government and the European Union are developing comprehensive strategies to reduce plastic pollution, including a phase-out of single-use plastics, (v) that films such as David Attenborough's Blue Planet 2 and the ABC television series The War on Waste have drawn public attention to the impact of marine plastics, and (vi) that the Australian Threat Abatement Plan for Marine Debris expired in 2014, and the Government is yet to enact a new Plan to replace it; and (b) calls upon the government to: (i) urgently enact a new Threat Abatement Plan for Marine Debris, and (ii) start showing international leadership by joining, supporting and advancing global and multi-lateral agreements to end plastic pollution in our oceans. 18:23 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Australian government takes the problem of plastic waste and its impacts on the environment very seriously and works with other governments to address ocean pollution. Most recently the government has worked with the states and territories to voluntarily phase out the use of microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products, with 94 per cent of these products now microbead free. Question agreed to. Dorothy Hewett Award for an Unpublished Manuscript 90 18:24 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 851 standing in my name for today. The terms of the amendment were circulated in the chamber earlier. Leave granted. Senator BERNARDI G0D I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes the allegations made by the daughters of the late Dorothy Hewett that she pimped her then-minor daughters for sex; (b) further notes that one daughter described their home as 'a brothel without payment' and the sisters named perpetrators including: (i) the late former Labor speechwriter Bob Ellis, (ii) pop artist Martin Sharp, and (iii) British erotic photographer David Hamilton; (c) also notes that the University of Western Australia runs a $10,000 annual prize named the 'Dorothy Hewett Award for an Unpublished Manuscript', which is an award supported in 2019 by The Saturday Paper and the Copyright Agency; and (d) in light of the seriousness of the allegations, calls upon the Education Minister to seek assurances from the University of Western Australia that it will: (i) rename the award, or (ii) in the event that naming rights are a condition of the prize, to suspend the award until the allegations are investigated and resolved. 18:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The allegations detailed in this motion are abhorrent and have rightly attracted condemnation. The officer of the Minister for Education and Training has raised these concerns with the University of Western Australia. Question agreed to. Goods and Services Tax 91 18:25 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 855 standing in my name by substituting the word 'Treasurer' for the words 'Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann)' in paragraph (c). Leave granted. Senator BERNARDI G0D I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes the relativities under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) formula show that the Northern Territory has been a substantial outrider at a relativity in excess of 4 since the GST began, compared with every other state and territory having a relativity of less than 2; (b) also notes the most recent GST distributions whereby: (i) the Northern Territory has a population of 200,000 and received $2 billion in the last distribution, (ii) Western Australia has 2 million in population and a $2 billion distribution, and (iii) New South Wales had 7 million in population and a $17 billion distribution; and (c) calls upon the Treasurer to direct the Productivity Commission to conduct a full cost–benefit analysis of the Northern Territory's present self-government model, and whether the Commonwealth needs to directly intervene to rapidly improve the Northern Territory's drag on national productivity. 18:26 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government has taken responsible action with additional financial assistance of $259 million to protect the Northern Territory from the extreme outcomes resulting from the 2018-19 GST distribution, which has placed essential services under pressure. The total GST bill has been increased by around $2 billion this year alone as a direct result of the integrity measures the Commonwealth has introduced and legislated to improve the GST take. This is money that goes to all states and territories to provide essential services like schools, hospitals and police. 18:27 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GEORGIOU 269583 This motion argues that the Northern Territory is a drain on national productivity. Right now, WA gets 34 cents in every dollar for its GST share. In the NT, the GST share is $4.66. How does this work? In other words, every person in the NT receives $12,000, compared to just $882 for every person in WA. Tasmanians get $4,600 per head, South Australians $3,600 per head and Victorians $2,389 per head. These figures have been confirmed by the Parliamentary Library today. In 2016-17, Western Australia accounted for 35 per cent of the nation's exports—that's 35 per cent of our exports. The Northern Territory accounted for just 1.6 per cent. Western Australia is by far the country's leading state on a balance-of-payments basis. The government must now release the Productivity Commission report on the GST and implement its recommendations. More GST for WA right now. 18:28 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Labor opposes this motion. In the Northern Territory there are many remote communities that suffer from high levels of disadvantage. We have a historical deficit. When it comes to issues such as infrastructure, housing, education and health, these need to be addressed if we are to have equal access to economic and social opportunities. The fact is that it costs more to run a health clinic in Yuendumu than it does in Melbourne. More than 70 per cent of our roads are unsealed. The massive GST cut recently inflicted on the Territory is the equivalent of closing every school in the Northern Territory and it will affect the people of the Northern Territory for years to come. With a population of around 250,000, generating own-source revenue is a challenge for the Territory. We do everything we can to attract private investment. Developing the north needs a national effort and it is to the advantage of all Australians that we pursue this common agenda. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 855, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:33]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

4 AYES Anning, F Bernardi, C (teller) Georgiou, P Leyonhjelm, DE 52 NOES Abetz, E Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Brown, CL Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Scullion, NG Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 92 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 92

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Consideration resumed.

(18:37): The PRESIDENT I0Q In accordance with the order agreed to earlier, it being past 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted for consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired and the questions will now be put. I will first put the outstanding questions that were before the committee prior to senators' statements. I will put the question on the amendments that were before the chair earlier today. I will then work through the questions on the other amendments circulated in respect of the bill. If any senator wishes to withdraw amendments they have circulated, they may do so by leave. Senator Collins? 18:30 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Mr President, in terms of the process you just outlined, what were the questions that you indicated you would put up first? The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm about to read out the ones that were before the chair earlier today. I will now go through the amendments by sheet and by number as I put them to the chamber, starting with the ones that were already moved before the chair in the committee stage. The question is that amendment Nos (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to. Senator Collins? Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Just so that we can be clear—and I understand there's no debate, discussion or the like on the actual amendments—I think it's important for senators, particularly in circumstances where we don't have a committee consideration, to understand what the question actually is before us. The point you made earlier was that you were proceeding with those questions that had already been moved in the limited debate that we had— The PRESIDENT I0Q The ones that were before the chair. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 So, looking at the running sheet and comparing that with the revised running sheet—and thank you to the clerks for providing it—Senator Storer's amendments, the ones that have already been moved, are (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15). Senator Storer's amendment (1) is not being moved at this stage; is that correct? The PRESIDENT I0Q The amendments that you just read out, and that I just read out, are the ones that had been moved and were before the chair in the committee stage earlier today. They are the ones that will be put first, and then I will work through a sheet that has been provided with other amendments that were circulated but were not before the chair. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Mr President, for clarity purposes and also for Senator Storer, in order for us to understand which of his amendments are the ones he moved earlier, and for what purpose, it might be necessary for the clerks to actually read the amendments so we know what we're really dealing with. The PRESIDENT I0Q I have just taken some advice from the Clerk, which confirms my past experience that, where amendments have been circulated in the chamber—and these were before the chair and well circulated—there is not a need to read them out. There is no doubt about what the matter we are dealing with is. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 The difficulty I have with the difference here is that the Clerk's advised you on how matters would be dealt with under normal circumstances, which is not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with an artificial distinction between amendments that have been previously moved and the ones that haven't yet been dealt with. In the case of Senator Storer, for instance, he has only now started to understand that, in terms of the batching of his issues— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, I was referring to my own experience of when the Senate has adopted this procedure that I am now bound by, which is to put these votes without debate or discussion. I've made a ruling in respect of there being no need to read the amendments out. I have allowed you to put your point. I've made my ruling. I'm now going to put the question, because that is what the Senate has directed me to do—to put these motions without debate or discussion. So the question is—and I'll read it again—that amendment Nos (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Mr President, just further to that, can I then clarify in respect of Senator Storer's amendments, for example, when in this process he would be moving amendment (1). The PRESIDENT I0Q We will go through the other amendments in an order that I have been provided with. They will all be voted on by the Senate. Even if they were not before the chair, all the amendments will be voted on by the Senate in an order starting now. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 So, if they're on the running sheet they have been moved, but senators are able to withdraw if that's their want? The PRESIDENT I0Q I will restate it and I'll make it very clear. The first set of amendments are the ones that were moved by Senator Storer earlier today and were before the chair at the time. Then we will proceed through other matters. But I'm going to put that question now. I'm not going to read them out four times every time. I'll do it again now. The question is that amendment numbers (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:48]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 36 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 1 PAIRS Polley, H Sinodinos,

Question negatived.

18:52 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that sections 61-110 and 61-115 in item 1, item 5 and part 3 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The Senate divided. [18:52]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 31 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 1 PAIRS Sinodinos, A Polley,

Question agreed to.

18:55 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that amendments (1), (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8449, amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8431, amendments (2), (13), (15), (17) and (19) on sheet 8449, and amendments (1) to (3), (5), (7), (9) and (10) on sheet 8450, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item. (3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit "and Low Income tax offset". [consequential—Low Income tax offset] (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit "and Low Income tax offset". [consequential—Low Income tax offset] (6) Schedule 1, page 9 (line 12), omit the heading. [consequential—section 159N rebate] (8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item, substitute: 6 Section 13 ‑1 (table item headed " low income earner " ) Omit: substitute: [consequential—section 159N rebate] (9) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 1 to 4), omit the item. [consequential—section 159N rebate] (10) Schedule 1, page 10 (line 5), omit the heading. [consequential—Low Income tax offset] (11) Schedule 1, items 8 and 9, page 10 (lines 6 to 15), omit the items. [consequential—Low Income tax offset] (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note. [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset] (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 20) to page 5 (line 2), omit subsection 61‑107(1), substitute: General rule—2018 ‑2019 income year (1) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2018‑19 income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 2), after subsection 61‑107(1), insert: General rule—2019 ‑20 income year and later income years (1A) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2019‑20 income year or a later income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 4), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset] (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 23), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset] (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 5 and 6), omit the table items. [consequential—tax rates] (13) Schedule 2, item 2, page 13 (lines 11 to 13), omit the table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (15) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15 omit the table dealing with tax rates for non‑resident taxpayers for the 2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (17) Schedule 2, item 9, page 16 (lines 8 to 10), omit the table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (19) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 20 (line 1) to page 21 (line 12), omit the Part. [consequential—tax rates] ______________ (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 1), omit ", Division 1". [consequential—tax rates] (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item. [consequential—tax rates] (3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 13 (line 14) to page 14 (line 2), omit the table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (5) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15 (lines 3 to 5), omit the table dealing with tax rates for non‑resident taxpayers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (7) Schedule 2, item 9, page 16 (lines 11 to 13), omit the table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income, substitute: [tax rates] (9) Schedule 2, heading to Division 1 of Part 3, page 20 (line 2), omit the heading. [consequential—tax rates] (10) Schedule 2, Division 2 of Part 3, page 20 (line 20) to page 21 (line 12), omit the Division [consequential—tax rates] 18:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Could I just briefly make two points. I appreciate that you're giving me some leeway to do so, so I will be brief. The first is that these include the amendments which proposed Labor's bigger, better and fairer tax plan, so I just draw that to the attention of the chamber given that Senator Cormann made some inaccurate statements earlier today. In light of that, what I'd also say to you, Mr President, is that there is a distinct possibility there may be senators who wish to vote differently on items (1) to (3), (5), (7), (9) and (10) on sheet 8450. These are items that fill a gap in the tax law as a result of the Senate's earlier decision to omit step 3 of the government's plan from the bill. They implement the step 2 tax rates for 2024-25 and later income years rather than leaving no rates in place, and they make associated consequential amendments. So I would invite you to consider putting those items that I've identified in that contribution separately. The PRESIDENT I0Q If any senator requests that any item be put separately, I will put them separately, but they must vote differently on the item they requested to be put separately to other items. Are there any requests from any senators who wish to vote on items differently? 18:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Yes, Mr President, there are. In relation to this, we wish to split out amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8431 and vote on that separately to the other amendments before the chair. The PRESIDENT I0Q Okay. What I will do is read it out again so that we are clear on the amendments that are being put. The question now is that amendments (1), (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8449, amendments (2), (13), (15), (17) and (19) on sheet 8449, and amendments (1) to (3), (5), (7), (9) and (10) on sheet 8450 circulated by the opposition be agreed to. 18:58 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Mr President, I'm aware that some of the other senators who indicated positions to us may not have had sufficient time to understand which ones are in that batch. Could you repeat that again, please. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, I have offered senators the opportunity. Senator Whish-Wilson has indicated he would like some matters dealt with separately because he would like to vote differently on that to the others. No-one else has taken advantage of that opportunity, so I'm going to put it as I read it out just then. The question now is that amendments (1), (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8449, amendments (2), (13), (15), (17) and (19) on sheet 8449 and amendments (1) to (3), (5), (7), (9) and (10) on sheet 8450, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [19:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

32 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 36 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 1 PAIRS Polley, H Sinodinos,

Question negatived.

19:05 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8431 be agreed to. Opposition 's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note. [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset] (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 20) to page 5 (line 2), omit subsection 61‑107(1), substitute: General rule—2018 ‑2019 income year (1) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2018‑19 income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 2), after subsection 61‑107(1), insert: General rule—2019 ‑20 income year and later income years (1A) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2019‑20 income year or a later income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 4), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset] (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 23), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". [consequential—Low and Middle Income tax offset]

The Senate divided. [19:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

22 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM Pratt, LC Singh, LM Smith, DPB Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Wong, P 44 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Di Natale, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKim, NJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Siewert, R Smith, DA Steele-John, J Storer, TR Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR 1 PAIRS Polley, H Sinodinos,

Question negatived.

19:10 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that items 12 and 13 of schedule 1 and the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday-makers for the 2022-23 or the 2023-24 year of income stand as printed. The opposition opposed schedule 1 and schedule 2 in the following terms— (8) Schedule 1, items 12 and 13, page 11 (lines 9 to 13), to be opposed. [Low and Middle Income tax offset] (14) Schedule 2, item 2, page 13 (line 14) to page 14 (line 2), table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income to be opposed. [tax rates] (16) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15 (lines 3 to 5), table dealing with tax rates for non‑resident taxpayers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income to be opposed. [tax rates] (18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 16 (lines 11 to 13), table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2022‑23 or 2023‑24 year of income to be opposed. [tax rates]

The Senate divided. [19:10]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

43 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Di Natale, R Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKim, NJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rhiannon, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Siewert, R Smith, DA Steele-John, J Storer, TR Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR 23 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Singh, LM Smith, DPB Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Wong, P 1 PAIRS Sinodinos, A Polley,

Question agreed to.

19:15 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (17) to (19) on sheet 8441, circulated by Senator Storer, be agreed to. Senator Storer's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 5 and 6), omit the table items. (17) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 13 (starting at line 2), omit the Part, substitute: Part 1—Main amendments Income Tax Rates Act 1986 1 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table item 3, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 3 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table item 1, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 4 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 5 Clause 4 of Part II of Schedule 7 (example) Repeal the example. 6 Clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the taxpayer ' s working holiday taxable income that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 7 Clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table item 3, column headed " For the part of the taxpayer ' s working holiday taxable income that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 8 Application The amendments made by this Part apply to the 2018‑19 year of income and later years of income. (18) Schedule 2, items 10 to 12, page 18 (lines 3 to 12), omit the items. (19) Schedule 2, items 15 and 16, page 18 (line 22) to page 19 (line 3), omit the items.

The Senate divided. [19:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question negatived.

19:18 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that part 3 of schedule 2 stand as printed. Senator Storer opposed schedule 2 in the following terms— (20) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 20 (line 1) to page 21 (line 12), to be opposed. Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [19:18]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

36 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Williams, JR 32 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS 19:21 The PRESIDENT I0Q We now come to the last part of this chain of events. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 No, you skipped one. The PRESIDENT I0Q That's an unnecessary stage. I've been speaking to the Clerk about this. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I have just been dealing with the Clerk about this matter and I've been advised that that is not necessary. Senator Wong 00AOU So you're going to truncate it even more and not even have a debate on whether or not the bill should be agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q No. If I could complete the reading out of the motion: I've taken advice from the Clerk, Senator Wong, and the question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments. It is not necessary to have that particular motion in this chain of events— Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 This running sheet is what was circulated. Senator Wong 00AOU We are already in an extraordinary procedure which has been following a document which has been circulated in the chamber. You are now seeking to amend that document, and I'd ask you not to. I'd ask you to simply proceed with the question. It may be a guide and you may know what you're doing, but— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU You may; who knows? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong— Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU You know you would have had the vote now if you'd— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, please address me rather than Senator Cormann. This was circulated in the chamber. It is a guide and a courtesy. The rulings on procedure— Senator Wong 00AOU I am requesting 'that the bill, as amended, be agreed to' as a question. The PRESIDENT I0Q And I am advised by the Clerk that that is an unnecessary stage in this chain of events and the final matter remaining to be dealt with is 'that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed with amendments'. Senator Collins, are you raising a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Yes, I am. As a courtesy, given the clerks would have advised the construction of this document in the first instance and we've been given no notice of the change, I would ask as a courtesy that we continue to follow the program that we have had in front of us and we ask the next question. The PRESIDENT I0Q That is a courtesy document. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 It's unprecedented if you do that. You're politicising yourself. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, really? I'm taking advice from the Clerk. I've ruled on the point of order and I've granted opposition senators latitude in this particular part— Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 There's no latitude on this. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, can you remain silent while I'm ruling from the chair. I have granted the opposition courtesy to raise a number of issues in— Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 This is not courtesy. You should have told us of the changes. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, I was advised two minutes ago during the last division. Resume your seat while I finish ruling on your point of order. I have granted the opposition latitude during a part of the Senate where there was to be no debate or discussion. I am now putting this motion. The question is— Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Mr President, I didn't raise a point of order. I sought a courtesy on the basis that you are referring to Clerk's advice that has not been before anyone else here. There was no notice of it. I asked that the courtesy of following the program that has been circulated be followed. The PRESIDENT I0Q I have ruled, Senator Collins. I have granted the opposition— Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Really! Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, you have been granted latitude today during a session of the Senate that was specifically— An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q It is an order of the Senate that this matter be proceeded with without debate or discussion. You have been granted latitude— Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, you should reflect on your opportunity to save face, given the accusations you have just made. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments. 19:25 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I just wanted to get on record that, when we voted on items 12 and 13 of schedule 1 and the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday-makers, the Greens opposed amendment (8) on sheet 8341. But I would like to get on record that had we split those bills we would have said yes to 8449—amendments (1) to (10). The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you. That is noted on the record. Senator Collins? 19:26 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria On the basis of that advice, I think we should have the vote recommitted. The PRESIDENT I0Q I don't have a request for that from Senator Whish-Wilson. He has asked to put the matter on the record. He's been granted the courtesy to do that. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments.

The Senate divided. [19:28]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT 106 ADJOURNMENT Grandparents 106 19:31 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I'd like to take a little time this evening on the adjournment to talk about an important issue, which is grandparent carers across the Australian community, specifically the progress that has been made since the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the matter. The Senate will recall that in December 2013 it established an inquiry into grandparents who take primary responsibility for raising their grandchildren. The Senate inquiry received 176 submissions from all over Australia, with 36 submissions from Western Australia. The committee held seven public hearings across the country and heard from 116 witnesses. The committee tabled its final report in October the following year. In January 2016 the government responded to the report, supporting an increased focus on encouraging greater awareness and use of existing services and supports available to grandparent carers. As part of its response, the government agreed firstly to a trial expansion of the existing Grandparent Advisers program and expanded outreach activities conducted by all eight grandparent advisers. Secondly, increased support for grandparent and kinship carers by providing national information, resources and support. Thirdly, a national survey to better understand the demographics of non-parent carers and their needs so as to inform government policy and practices. I'm delighted that this very important, but often very invisible, issue continues to get the attention of the government. In 2017, following the evaluation of an expansion of the existing Grandparent Advisers program, the program was expanded, and increased outreach activities have been implemented across Australia. Last year there were 319 Grandparent Adviser outreach activities conducted across Australia. In WA a total of 55 activities were undertaken, including 28 external outreach activities and 27 internal outreach activities. Groups involved in the expansion included the WA Department for child protection, Centrecare, Wanslea Grandcare program, Escare and MercyCare childcare centres. We have also seen an increase in support for grandparent and kinship careers and their peer support groups. The Raising Children Network was engaged to provide national information, resources and support. Five carer forums were held in March and April 2017 involving over 300 participants, including 200 grandparent carers and over 80 service providers. In WA the forum was held on 12 May 2017 and included 50 grandparent carers and 24 service providers. These forums achieved a number of outcomes, such as increased grandparent and kinship carer capacity to care for their grandchildren and an understanding of how to run effective peer support groups; improved awareness of support services and resources available for better access; increased awareness, understanding and recognition of the role and contribution of grandparent kinship carers in the community and strengthened service provider capacity to support grandparent and kinship carers. To increase service provider capacity, and to assist peer support groups to function effectively, four service provider forums were held across Australia, including one in my home state of Western Australia. The development of national information and resources has also been completed. The new information, tools and resources include: new Parenting in Pictures resources that cater for audiences with low text literacy; a comprehensive list of major support services in each state and territory; a new landing page on raisingchildren.net.au for all translated content to assist carers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and the completion of two electronic how-to guides to support and assist carers. Finally, the national survey was conducted in late 2016 by the Australian Institute of Family Studies with support from state and territory governments. The final report was submitted to the federal government in 2017 and was recently published in May 2018 on the Australian Institute of Family Studies' website. Since the government's response, grandparent carers have gained a number of protections and positive financial changes following a number of reforms to social security and childcare legislation. I acknowledge Senator Claire Moore and Senator Carol Brown, who also participated on the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry some years ago. Specifically, grandparent carers have been exempted under the family tax benefit part B changes. The family tax benefit part B continues to be available, as per the current rate structure, to grandparent and great-grandparent carers. Grandparent carers have been given access to a new subsidy under the coalition's new Childcare Assistance Package, which begins on 2 July 2018. This grandparent-specific top-up subsidy is available in addition to the standard childcare subsidy and will provide income support for those grandparents who are the primary carers of their grandchildren. We've also exempted grandparent carers from the childcare subsidy activity test. This means grandparent carers will be eligible to access up to 100 hours of approved child care fortnightly. I'm sure everyone in the Senate would agree that grandparent carers deserve our continued support and advocacy. While this is progress, there is always much more that can and should be done for these unsung heroes who live in our community. Braddon By-Election 107 19:36 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the upcoming Super Saturday elections. In particular, I'd like to talk about the by-election in Braddon. The upcoming by-election in Braddon is a fantastic opportunity for the people of Tasmania to send a message to the Liberal Party. It's an opportunity for the people to tell this government, and indeed the government of Tasmania, that they value the work of Justine Keay and that they value what she's done as their member to improve their region. It's an opportunity for people to say that they don't want someone who thinks that aged-care work is bad work, as the Prime Minister suggested only yesterday. They want someone who has worked in the community and has worked for the community for years. They don't want someone like Brett Whiteley, who cheers at the prospect of young people having to starve, and they certainly don't want a former banker—Brett Whiteley—who thinks it's okay for the sick and elderly to pay a $20 tax when they see a doctor. When the people of Braddon voted to replace Brett Whiteley with Justine Keay in 2016, they sent a signal to the Liberals. After three years of being represented by someone who ignored them, refused to listen, blocked anyone with a dissenting view, wanted to cut their penalty rates and stood against critical services for west and north-west Tasmania, such as schools and hospitals, the people of Braddon instead decided to vote for a local representative that stood for their best interests. People in Braddon don't need a former banker who's going to vote with this out-of-touch Prime Minister to give a taxpayer-funded handout to big banks. They've seen what Mr Whiteley and the Prime Minister have done for the community, and they've rejected it. They've seen how Mr Whiteley stood with this Prime Minister in the way of a banking royal commission, and they know where his real loyalties lie. He voted six times against a royal commission. The people in Braddon, like the rest of the nation, have seen and have been shocked by what has come out of the banking royal commission, and they can't believe that the Liberals stood in the way of this for so long. The people of Braddon, like all Australians, are after a representative who will be a champion for the things that matter. They're after an advocate for their region who will see tax cuts brought to everyday Australians. That's why a Shorten Labor government will deliver tax relief to 39,000 people in Braddon, and that's why re-electing Justine Keay is an important part of seeing those tax cuts that matter delivered to the people of Braddon. While the Prime Minister's tax plan sees the largest share of the benefits go to his own electorate in Sydney, it places Braddon 147th in the country. That's just four from the bottom. That's why I'm proud to support Justine Keay and to work to see her returned as the member for Braddon. I'm proud of what she stands for, and I know that she'll fight for the people of the west and north-west coasts of Tasmania. After all, it's their wellbeing that matters to her, not the wellbeing of big banks and multinationals. That's why she'll fight for their best interests ahead of the few in Point Piper. Justine is someone who has worked in public service and has served her city as a local alderman, as well as serving as a local representative for Braddon. Her opponent is someone who, like this Prime Minister, has worked as a banker; he's someone who, like this Prime Minister, stood in the way of a royal commission into the banks; and he's someone who, like this Prime Minister, thinks that people like those who have critical roles as aged-care workers in Burnie just need to get better jobs. This is the kind of person who cheered, 'Hear, hear!' when my colleague Mr Tim Watts characterised this government as wanting young people to earn, learn or starve. Can you get a less compassionate group of people than this current lot that we have in government now? That's why I'm proud to back Justine Keay. I'm proud that she's been an advocate for Braddon, and I know that, if returned, Justine will continue to be a strong advocate for the north-west and west coasts of Tasmania. EX-MED Cancer 108 19:41 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania As many in this place know, I'm a passionate advocate for cancer patients and their families. We need to find better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancers of all kinds. I want to speak tonight just quickly about EX-MED Cancer, a best-practice exercise program for people with cancer. As you can imagine, cancer has a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of cancer patients. The impacts include fatigue, cognitive impairment, accelerated bone loss, incontinence, dysfunction of other sorts and many others. For example, I personally have developed a bit of a hearing disability since my brain cancers. Years of scientific research has established that exercise is an invaluable medicine in the management of cancer, and evidence shows that exercise helps cancer patients counteract their cancer related fatigue and tolerate their treatments. Exercise minimises functional impairments, relieves stress and mental distress and is safe during and after treatment. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, or COSA, is calling for exercise to be embedded as part of standard practice in cancer care. Currently approximately 60 to 90 per cent of patients do not meet the recommended exercise guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week, and this is perfectly understandable. Cancer can be a tough, horrible disease. Exercise is not naturally something that people with cancer generally want to do, particularly if the disease is causing them pain, discomfort or fatigue. Recently, as I said, I've met with Associate Professor Prue Cormie and Nicole Cooper from EX-MED Cancer. Associate Professor Cormie is an accredited exercise physiologist and researcher whose work focuses on the application of exercise as medicine for the management of cancer. EX-MED Cancer is a not-for-profit entity dedicated to ensuring cancer patients receive best-practice exercise medicine. It is a partnership between a number of organisations, including the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Australian Catholic University, the University of Melbourne, Ovarian Cancer Australia and others. EX-MED Cancer provides the following services: coordinating the referral pathway from medical professional to patient and on to qualified practitioner; managing the delivery of a structured personalised exercise program; collating data for ongoing research; engaging with the multidisciplinary medical teams involved in cancer care to improve engagement and the delivery of exercise prescriptions; and delivery of education to cancer care practitioners responsible for the delivery of exercise medicine. Their goal is the improved health and wellbeing of all Australians with cancer. Currently, there are approximately 138,000 cancer diagnoses every year in Australia, and it's expected to reach 150,000 by 2020. So far EX-MED has had around 500 patient inquiries across a broad spectrum of cancers and over 200 inquiries from members of the medical profession. People with cancer can enrol themselves through EX-MED Cancer, or they can be referred by any member of the healthcare team or by community based organisations like the Cancer Council. After enrolling, EX-MED will provide information about the service and an information pack. Patients will be registered for the next EX-MED Cancer term at a site closest to their home. Patients can access information through the EX-MED Cancer Hub, a central point of contact and information, which patients and health professionals can access at any point throughout the program. After a GP has assessed that the patient is well enough to exercise, the exercise physiologist will do some simple physical assessments in order to tailor the exercise prescription. After an instructional exercise session, in which the exercise physiologist will teach them the exercises involved, the patient will then attend three one-hour exercise sessions for three months in a group of 10 people with cancer. The exercise sessions will be supervised by their EX-MED Cancer exercise physiologist, who will instruct them to complete their personalised exercise prescription. Finally, the exercise physiologist will reassess the patient's health status and provide feedback on their progress following the completion of the EX-MED Cancer program. The exercise physiologist will re-evaluate their personalised exercise prescription in light of their progress and develop a plan for them to continue exercising. Patients are responding positively to this program. While EX-MED is currently based in Melbourne, it aims to expand internationally in the future. I would like to finish my contribution tonight with one final thought from EX-MED. They said to me when they came to see me: If the effects of exercise could be encapsulated in a pill it would be prescribed to every person with cancer. Even if this pill had just a fraction of the positive health benefits exercise provides it would be viewed as a miracle drug in the fight against cancer. Voting Age 109 19:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia One of the joys of being a senator—and I'm currently the youngest to occupy that role in this place—has been meeting with hundreds of young people. I've had the opportunity to speak with them in my role and here in the parliament. I must say that often one of the best parts of my day is looking up into the galleries of this place and seeing the wonderful young faces looking down on us all. I reflect whether our actions here do them justice. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago, in the lead-up and aftermath of National Youth Week, to talk to young people from Kalgoorlie to Bunbury and Denmark about the issues that matter to them, about what they would like to see us here do, about their aspirations and hopes for the future and about the ways they would like them to be achieved. We spoke about myriad issues. I must say that at times I was given pause to reflect on the fact that some of the debates and conversations that we had seemed to be more intelligent, more positive and better thought through than some of the debates I find that we engage in in this place. We spoke specifically in every context about how they would like to make their voice heard, how they would like to shape the political environment. Again and again they brought up with me the issue of lowering the voting age to 16 to give them the opportunity to make their voice heard at the ballot box because they didn't feel they were being heard now. So in that spirit I'd like to read some quotations from some young people who spoke with me. In relation to lowering the voting age, one said that it would allow young Australian citizens to speak out; another said that members of parliament need to listen to the younger generations and that it would enable young people to have their voice heard by the politicians who determine our future; and, finally, another said—and this really stayed with me—that it would teach children that they have voices too. This person felt that at the moment only adults can be heard. Two very passionate young people who I've had the honour to work with and campaign with in the past are Angela Lillyman and Harry Sulley. Angela said to me in a letter that she wrote and subsequently recorded: If I got a voice in parliament, if I got a vote, I would vote for things like real action on climate change, because it's directly relating to my future, it is such a big issue, it's so prominent and it is not being effectively talked about or controlled by parliament. Harry said: I believe that lowering the voting age would introduce young people to political processes … I've been involved in the online political community and I can tell you there are thousands of young people like myself in Australia who are politically engaged but aren't given the chance to take part in the process. I work. I'm in a Union and I contribute to the economy and the community yet I don't have a say in how my country is run. I have found over this time that 16- and 17-year-olds are passionate and want to have their say in our politics. They are overwhelmingly in favour of lowering the voting age, although those who weren't made arguments so eloquent and intricate that they made the case as to why they should be given the option if they wanted to be. I would like to sincerely thank the hundreds of young people who shared their passions, thoughts and insights into the future with me. Thank you to Angela and Harry for sharing their stories and adding their voices to the campaign. Thank you to the students of Georgiana Molloy high school in Busselton, the Bunbury Senior High School, Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School and Great Southern Grammar in Albany, to the numerous young people who attended our events throughout Youth Week and to the Goldfields Youth Support Services. I am proud to be your voice in this place. United Nations Human Rights Council 110 19:51 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland This is not my first speech. I rise today to highlight the utter failure that is the United Nations Human Rights Council. This worm-eaten body of foreign despots and failing states has lost all moral legitimacy. As a nation that has not committed human right abuses, we should no longer validate it with our membership. For too long Australia has accepted a Human Rights Council that is a case study in human rights violations. The US has called for reform, yet it has refused. While Australia lacks leadership willing to challenge the situation, America is blessed with decisive leadership. Donald Trump and Ambassador Nikki Haley should be congratulated on their courage. The 47-member council hosts some of the most savage and despotic nations in the world. Let me name a few members of this group: Afghanistan, Angola, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ukraine and Venezuela. Does Australia really want to be partners with some of the worst human rights offenders in the world? Are we comfortable standing shoulder to shoulder with such towering paragons of human rights as China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa? China continues to kill and oppress its own people as well as the Tibetans, whose country is still illegally occupied. The persecution of Christians is widespread. Churches are forced into hiding due to fear of arrest. The restriction on religious freedoms is completely opposed to Australian and Western values. China has continued to bully its neighbours, seizing and fortifying islands in international waters in the South China Sea and threatening neighbour-states. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country well known for its complete lack of respect for women, continues to stone women accused of adultery. It sits on a council with the aim of advancing human rights. Saudi Arabia funds the expansion of radical Islam worldwide. South Africa voted to remove the right to private property from its constitution in February this year. South Africa should have been removed from the council. The right to private property and its secure ownership is a fundamental right, as is the right to life, in regard to which the South African government seems equally nonplussed. I have highlighted in the past the ongoing targeted racial attacks on white farmers by black racist gangs. These are the very nations the Human Rights Council should be targeting for reform; they should not be in the driving seat controlling the agenda. While there's been criticism of the council in the past, it has taken real leadership from the United States to highlight the complete hypocrisy of the Human Rights Council. Australia needs to find the courage to join the United States in refusing to grant the UN Human Rights Council the illusion of moral legitimacy. A group that apparently believes it is acceptable to suppress Christianity, spread racial Islamic terrorism and butcher white farmers has zero authority on any moral issue and is an organisation that Australia should not have anything to do with. United Nations Human Rights Council, Young Liberal Movement, Cancer, Braddon By-Election 110 19:55 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland This is an adjournment debate. I want to make a couple of comments, first of all, to Senator Anning, to say that Australia was proudly just recently elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Whilst I couldn't necessarily agree with your description of the other participants, I can say that Australia is an acknowledged leader in human rights. We feel that we can make a contribution towards human rights around the world by getting involved in this UN committee. It was an election, and Australia was successful in getting elected. We will bring all of our leadership in the human rights area to the group which you are concerned about and which, in the past, I have been as well. I just want to say to Senator Steele-John, if he thinks young people don't have a voice, can I suggest that he says to the young people he says that he speaks with that they should join the Young Liberal Movement. There are a lot of young people who do have a very big voice in the politics and the government of the country, and that is the thousands of young people between 16 and 25 who have actually joined the Young Liberal Movement and, in that capacity, have a lot of say and a lot of influence. They tell older parliamentarians like me and Senator Payne what young people are thinking, and we are then able to respect and honour their views. I want to congratulate Senator Bilyk on the work she does with cancer. It's lovely to hear, on the adjournment debate, the sort of work that Senator Bilyk herself is doing. I only have admiration for her in that capacity and congratulate her. It is much different, though, I might say, to her Tasmanian Senate colleague Senator Brown, who spent her time on this adjournment debate justifying a person who knew that she should not be in parliament, who knew that she should not be drawing a salary from Commonwealth taxpayers when she knew, better than anyone else, as did Mr Shorten, that she wasn't eligible to sit in the chamber. Senator Brown spent all of her time in this adjournment debate praising Justine Keay and, at the same time, denigrating Brett Whiteley, a man who did a fabulous job in the short time he was in the federal parliament and who is fighting for tax cuts for the people of northern Tasmania. He is fighting for jobs for the people of northern Tasmania. He is fighting to support a federal government and a state government that has now done so much for Tasmania. Brett Whiteley is one of those intelligent, caring, enthusiastic people, who will again make a great contribution to this parliament and to Australia when he is, hopefully, as appears likely, re-elected to the federal parliament at the time of the by-election. I wish him well. He will get there on his own efforts, without any influence from Senator Brown or me, I might say, because the people of that area know and trust him. More importantly, they know and trust the Prime Minister, who Mr Whiteley supports, and they know and trust the Tasmanian Premier, who Mr Whiteley also supports. So I wish him all the best in the Braddon by-election, and I look forward to again working with Mr Whiteley. Senate adjourned at 19 : 59 DOCUMENTS 111 DOCUMENTS Tabling 111 Tabling 112