2018-08-13 45 1 7 Senate 0 1

Monday, 13 August 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Language 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q On Thursday, 28 June an exchange between two senators occurred in the chamber and became the subject of substantial public debate and commentary. I believe it is appropriate to address this now, as the Senate resumes for its current session. The facts are these. An exchange occurred between Senators Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm. I did not hear any of the comments made, nor were they drawn to the attention of the chamber at the time. Technically they did not form part of the Senate proceedings. The issue was raised with me later that day by Senator Di Natale, and I pursued a resolution to the matter privately. It was then subsequently brought to the attention of the chamber. No specific action was sought from the chair at that time, and it is now a matter of public record. In my view, had the exchange occurred as reported as part of the proceedings of the Senate, there is no doubt that the chair would have required certain comments to be withdrawn. I have no authority as President to force an apology or apply a sanction to any senator. Such actions are matters for the Senate. Since these events, I have considered the application of standing orders and custom and practice to events that occur in the chamber but that do not form part of formal proceedings. The relevant standing orders regarding the conduct of senators are, firstly, No. 193(3), Rules of debate: A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament … or any member of such House … and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections … shall be considered highly disorderly. This provision specifically applies to the formal proceedings, to debate in this chamber. However, standing order 203 is broader and is entitled 'Infringement of order'. Specifically, part (1) of that outlines: If a senator: … (b) is guilty of disorderly conduct; (c) uses objectionable words, and refuses to withdraw such words; … the President may report to the Senate that the senator has committed an offence. Standing order 197 provides that a senator may at any time raise a point of order 'arising in the proceedings then before the Senate', meaning it must be raised at the time of the incident. It has been the practice in this chamber to allow senators to raise a point of order about language used in exchanges that is not recorded in Hansard as part of the formal proceedings of the Senate. When outside the hearing of the chair, this has been followed by a request to withdraw inappropriate language if the language was used. Importantly, the practice of allowing this to be addressed immediately ensures those present are in the chamber when the matter is addressed. If a statement is not recorded in Hansard and was outside the hearing of the chair, the chair and chamber are reliant upon the honesty of senators involved, with the understanding that it is always possible for statements to be misheard or misattributed. Therefore, in my view, it is the established practice of this chamber that the standing orders do not apply simply or strictly to formal proceedings or records in the chamber but to other interactions as well. Any senator, not just those subject to them or involved in any exchange, has the capacity to draw comments to the attention of the chair and the chamber. I intend to write to the Deputy President, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, and ask the committee to give consideration to handling matters that occur in the chamber but that are not part of the formal proceedings and are not raised in the Senate at that time. More generally, I ask senators to consider the following. This chamber is the prime deliberative chamber of the parliament. It is far better that positive attention is attracted by our words and contributions to debate. On several occasions in recent times, this has not been the case. The standing orders and rules of this place are limits, not guides. Just because something can be said or done does not mean it should be. Common decency cannot be codified. It depends on all of us considering the impact of our behaviour on others. While this workplace isn't like a normal one, it is still a place where we all must work together, even across issues of profound disagreement. We also work with officials and staff, and we should consider the impact of our behaviour on them. This is rightly a place of vigorous debate, but personal abuse has no place in this chamber, particularly if it targets personal attributes, such as race or gender—nor does the use of abusive epithets or labels. The use of such language does nothing to facilitate the operation of a chamber and free debate within it, and we are all capable of vigorously arguing our case without resort to it. I intend to take a strict line on the use of such language, to uphold the dignity of the chamber and to ensure it is a place where all senators representing the people of their states and territories are able to freely contribute to debate and deliberations. Finally, it is sometimes said that parliament is at its best when dealing with issues of conscience and all senators speak freely and personally on such issues. Throughout this week we will have the opportunity to again demonstrate that. 10:06 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 As elected representatives of the Australian community it is our duty as senators to behave in a manner that sets a standard for respectful behaviour and decency in this country. The behaviour we witnessed from Senator Leyonhjelm towards his colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young during the last sitting week was disgraceful. It was designed to humiliate and to intimidate a fellow senator. The men who use sexism to belittle or intimidate women should never be tolerated in a decent society, let alone in this parliament. Yet in the parliament it seems that anything goes. Last year we witnessed the spectacle of Senator Pauline Hanson entering the chamber wearing a burqa. It was done with the deliberate intent of humiliating an entire religious community. And for what reason? For base political motives—to exploit racism for her own personal gain. These two examples—the example of Senator Leyonhjelm and, indeed, the example of Senator Hanson—represent some of the lowest points that we have experienced in this place. It isn't just our fellow senators who are the collateral damage when the debate turns nasty; members of the Australian community are also victims of this vicious behaviour. Our actions send a very clear message about what is acceptable behaviour. We will be putting forward a censure motion to condemn Senator Leyonhjelm's actions in the strongest possible terms, condemning his behaviour towards Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. He needs to be held to account for his actions. This parliament needs to send a very clear message about what is expected of political leaders in this place. And, of course, more than that, we need to ensure that this type of behaviour is not tolerated in the future. We have long advocated for a code of conduct in the Senate because our parliament should—and must—do better. We should set the standard. We should not be the example of what not to do. If senators cannot be trusted to act with decency and integrity in this chamber, then it's about time we all agreed on what is decent behaviour and held each other to account to that standard. 10:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I thank the Senate. First, Mr President, I congratulate you on your statement. I think it sets out very clearly not only the procedural issues but also the ethical issues that go to the heart of what we are dealing with here. So I indicate our support for not only the process you outlined but the principles which you asserted in that statement. In particular, that we recognise that, whilst this is a place of vigorous debate, as it should be—there are matters of contest here and matters we all care about, and we have different views—reference to race or gender has no place in that vigorous debate. I endorse your view that we are capable of debate without resorting to the sorts of labels and comments that we have witnessed and that you reference. In terms of how we in the Labor Party have sought to approach this, our approach has been, primarily, to think about how it is that we make this chamber a better place for all women and how we make this a better place for diversity. That is why I take the view that the President's statements contribute to that end. We certainly don't want to get into individual and partisan politics when dealing with these matters. I'm sure all of us, at times, can behave better, but our focus will always be on how we make this a better place for women to be involved in and for people from diverse backgrounds to be involved in. That is how we will continue to approach this matter. I note that Senator Di Natale has flagged a range of processes. We'll consider them. I do indicate, given the tone of the way in which the President has dealt with this, it would have been a sensible thing to give people notice of that before indicating it. 10:11 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement Leave granted. Senator HINCH 2O4 I support the comments made by Senator Di Natale and Senator Wong, and your own comments, Mr President. I noticed that as Senator Leyonhjelm walked out he joked to Senator Bernardi: 'I'm walking out very proudly.' He has learned nothing. His comments earlier in the session were disgusting, and he compounded them all by going on Sky News and gloating about what he'd said and why he would not apologise. He took some pride in the fact that he will not apologise for his comments. I noticed Senator Hanson-Young in her workplace—and it is a workplace—in tears down here that very morning, and I thought, 'What the hell is happening here?' I think Senator Leyonhjelm should hang his head in shame, and I'll support any censure motion that Senator Di Natale puts forward. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 3 10:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills: No. 72 Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018 No. 79 Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018 4

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018

Second Reading 4 10:12 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I'm pleased to continue my remarks. I refer colleagues to the tabled second reading speech from when this bill was introduced. I want to briefly highlight from that contribution that it has been Labor Party policy to actually advance a debt ceiling. It was the earlier incarnation of this coalition government that abolished the debt ceiling altogether. Labor, I note, voted against that repeal, and I appeal to them again to support this bill. Indeed, this Senate has actually passed a motion which said: … expresses its in-principle support for legislative measures that will help chart a pathway to budget surplus achieved by reducing spending and waste, not by increasing taxes. They're very simple premises. Government should cut its spending rather than foist its extravagant ways on and become a burden to the taxpayers of Australia. The Conservatives party maintains a debt clock on its website. It is usually the province of a right-of-centre opposition to maintain a debt clock against the wastefulness, extravagance and inefficiencies of a centre-left government. I regret that now it is up to the Conservatives party to maintain a debt clock against a coalition government, those who are historically very proud of their economic track record. Well, their economic track record, I regret to say, is as bad—or slightly worse or slightly better—than that of those on the other side. There is no difference between the two—the red party and the blue party—except, in this instance, Labor are actually on the record as saying they believe in a debt ceiling such that permission needs to be sought from the parliament before you further jeopardise the economic futures of our children and our grandchildren. Let's remember how this came about. The abolition of the debt ceiling happened when a coalition government teamed up with the Greens. That Green-blue alliance threw it all out the door and said: 'Trust us. It'll be okay.' I'm telling you that it's not okay. We're $530 billion-plus in the hole. Our government debt clock is ticking away—$488 in additional debt every single second. And there's another $561 every single second in interest on the debt that's already been accumulated. Every single second, the economic future of our children is going down the gurgler. The total interest on the debt today is around $17 billion. That's $17 billion in interest payments every single year. Imagine what you could do with that. Imagine what you could do with $17 billion. You could build seven brand-new, state-of-the-art public hospitals every single year. Let's have a look at this for a second. You could probably do it a bit more efficiently, but I'm basing it on the fact that, in South Australia, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital cost $2.3 billion to build. So we could build seven of those every single year and deal with a health crisis. But no. Instead we've decided to rack up $530 billion-odd worth of debt to pay $17 billion worth of interest. What have we got to show for it? We've got some sharper pencils and not much else. Or, if you don't want to build new hospitals but you recognise that there is an electricity crisis that needs to be dealt with, you could tip that money into building eight new 1,000-megawatt, high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power plants. It would cost about $2.2 billion. You could do that every single year. Not only would you provide a fertile environment for our coalmines and our coalminers and their jobs; you would provide every Australian with the lowest cost electricity of almost anywhere in the world. The tragedy of it is that it's all achievable. It would all be achievable if the last decade of wasteful government expenditure had not existed. Maybe if back in those days when they were throwing money around like confetti under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—and it hasn't improved much since then—instead of pursuing school halls and installing them in schools that have since closed, pushing pink batts insulation programs or borrowing money to send $900 cheques to dead people and people living overseas there could have been some nation-building project like taking the abundance of water from the north of Australia and building a pipeline or building some dams and they could have drought-proofed sections of this country. They could have improved the prospects and they wouldn't be facing the crisis they are facing in New South Wales today. All of those things may have been possible. But no. Instead government chose the expediency of clocking up bills they knew they would never be asked to repay. I think that is the greatest moral challenge of our time. How can we, today, expect to sustain and prop up our lifestyles and the grotesque spending from an engorged government that is delivering worse outcomes for the people of Australia whilst indebting future generations? And it's compounding the problem by this immigration Ponzi scheme, where we go, 'Oh, my goodness. We've got an ageing population. We've got these debts. What are we going to do? Let's truck a whole bunch of people in here and keep the whole merry-go-round going.' It's time to take stock. It's time to take some accountability. I note that the conservatives have said, 'We need to clean up Canberra,' and that our proposal is to suspend or freeze pay increases for politicians and senior public servants. Until they can deliver the promises they say they will, in respect to surpluses, until they're held to account for that, the promises will go unheeded. We've heard this from the greatest Treasurer in the world—apparently—Mr Wayne Swan, who said a surplus was just around the corner. Mr Bowen said much the same thing. Mr Hockey said much the same thing, and so on and on and on we go. One coalition frontbencher said, 'Imagine, under the current trajectory, if we run a $7 billion surplus every single year for the next 100 years, maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to pay off the debt that's already planned.' It's an extraordinary and shameful indictment on everyone in this place who keeps voting to borrow money to throw at problems where money is not the issue. It is the effectiveness of programs. I want to reflect on one of those things that happened in this place. It was in respect to the education funding bill. Education funding hasn't been working for the Australian people, because the literacy and numeracy rates of our students have been declining. The more money that's thrown at it, the worse it gets. We've got university students who are getting into teaching degrees with ATARs of 17, the minister said on television yesterday. And more money is being thrown into these less productive and respected outcomes than ever before. The government put forward a bill for $18½ billion to be thrown into education, most of which was not accounted for in the future estimates, so it's just another promise—$18 billion. When asked, 'What are the accountability measures that will come out of it? What will be the outcomes? How will they be measured?' the answer was, 'We'll get to that in a short time.' The indictment is not just on the Labor opposition and the coalition government. It goes to the crossbench as well. The crossbench all want their pound of flesh and to, somehow, stamp their authority over the government. Their desire was not for increased accountability or transparency; it was to borrow another $5 billion—$5 billion, as if it was just money to buy some fish and chips—to add to the unaccountable and unfunded $18 billion promise from the government. So I look around this chamber and go, 'Where are the voices of prudence, of common sense, of fiscal responsibility?' They seem to have been abandoned. And it's to the detriment of our country. Right around the world, we see governments doing the same thing. I hear justification from many in the government sphere or the opposition that Australia is somehow winning last place in the ugly fiscal contest. That's not good enough. We don't want to be in the ugly fiscal contest. We want to be in the beautiful fiscal contest—the country which runs surpluses, which doesn't have national debt, where our government is an ally of the people and the next generation is the custodian of all that makes this country great, rather than the enemy and the opponent of our children and our grandchildren. They—and, ipso facto, all of us—are doing the next generation a massive disservice. It is a disservice because we are not prepared to live within our means today, and we're expecting the next generation and the one after that and the one after that to pay our bills. This has been noted by very many people who can remove themselves from the demands or pressures of political life. It seems something happens in this place when you come up here and go, 'It seems like a good idea,' in this building, even though it doesn't pass the common-sense test. If you go out to the Australian people and ask them, 'Do you really think it's wise for a government to give $440-odd billion to an organisation without a strong track record of success, without a tender process and without anyone really understanding how and why that came about?' most people who live in the real world say, 'No, that's not clever at all.' And yet we've got the cabinet and the government saying that they can do that with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They're still a little coy about it all, but it's $440-odd million that has been borrowed. Wouldn't it be better to put that money into repaying debt? What about the fact that the government can give $440-odd million to a foundation with half-a-dozen employees, with little scrutiny and with very little justification, and yet it has successfully ignored the plight of farmers for many, many years? Some in this place—one of them was former senator Bill Heffernan—have talked about the damages and dangers of drought in New South Wales for a very long time. And yet, because it wasn't a crisis, it went unheeded. Now, when it is a crisis and when things could have been done earlier in the piece, the government throws $190 million into drought relief. That's $443 million, or $444 million, in a non-tender process to, really, an unknown group, versus $190 million in crisis drought relief. On the front page of The Australian today it states there is $22.5 billion in pork-barrelling in electorates. That's only what The Australian has dug up. It's on both sides of politics. Should the government really be tipping borrowed money into building mini golf courses to satisfy Labor's Waste Watch spokesman? I mean, if he was truly a former Waste Watch spokesman, he should have said, 'We don't want to waste the money on a mini golf course. Let that be done by the private sector.' What about a second-hand ute with a Santa sleigh on the back? That's a questionable use of taxpayers' money as well. At least Mr Kevin Rudd got a ute from his mate and it didn't cost the taxpayers any money. Couldn't we have done that again? What about dog parks? Is it really within the purview of this federal parliament to be funding dog parks? What about the cat lovers of the world? I love the dog parks, but it's not the responsibility of the federal government to be doing it. Leave it to the local councils. Leave it to state governments, if that's all they want to do. What about an extension of a model railway, or a children's water frog slide? We are getting into the inane here. We are here to be custodians of the children's responsibility for the future and we're building them water slides. It's akin to Marie Antoinette saying, 'Let them eat cake'—'What do we care? Let's entertain them. Let's put some bread and circuses there so that we can distract them with their water slides whilst we're selling out their futures.' Well, it's time to have that change. We've got $500-plus billion in debt. There is no genuine or credible plan to repay this money. We have been using this money to prop up the egos of politicians, to prop up public servants, for pork-barrelling in marginal electorates and to prop up experimental political schemes that have failed. But, as justification for their failure, they use: 'There's not enough money being tipped into it.' It's not that at all. There's plenty of money. It's just that it has got to be applied in a prudent and responsible manner. In fact, you can make the case that you can achieve more by having government do less. Part of coming up to Canberra after a long winter break is the frustration of knowing the damage that is going to be done in this place as the boondoggles and the lack of accountability and responsibility continue to be advanced. We're seeing it. There is rewarding of political mates. We're seeing it where everyone wants a plaque to say, 'This is what I've achieved.' Why don't we have an honour board for those who are actually interested in getting our country back in the black, back on the right track: re-adopting the process of running surpluses and not throwing money at every demanding cause and every sob story? The sob stories will only get worse and only get bigger in the decades ahead, because we are on an unsustainable path. If we cannot sustain our financial and economic sustainability—or profitability—if we cannot sustain our way of life in this country, and if we cannot sustain the quality, the values and the principles upon which this country was built, then we might as well all give up. You've got to ask yourself what you are doing here. If our commitment is to the 'now' generation, to the 'me' generation, with no thought to the future or to our responsibilities—which are to not lumber our children and our grandchildren, and possibly their children and grandchildren too, with paying back our failures today—then we have failed. And, unfortunately, I regret to say, we are failing. We're failing them because there is a lack of will and a lack of commitment—and it is, as I pointed out, from both the major parties. They'll pay lip service to it, but they don't like it. They'll pay lip service to saying, 'We're going to do this,' and, 'We're going to cut spending. We're going to make government more efficient. We're going to target our money in a more effective manner.' And yet their actions undermine those very claims. That's why Australians are casting their eyes around the place. They're looking for alternatives—some of those alternatives are healthier than others, I will say—because they no longer believe what politicians are going to tell them. They no longer believe that what we're doing up here is acting in their interests; they think it's acting in our interests. And, unfortunately, I think they're right: political expediency is the order of the day. But we've got to change that. We've got to make the order of the day our responsibility to those that will come after us. And the greatest thing we can do is to prevent them from having to pay our debts of today. That is the great moral challenge of our time, and every member in this place needs to put their hand up and say they are committed to doing it. One way in which you can do that is to invoke a debt ceiling so that there is not a blank cheque for government, because you know that, when there is a blank cheque for government, they just keep adding zeros and zeros and zeros to the cheques that they write. 10:32 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland It's always great to listen to Senator Bernardi, and it's great to follow him in this debate. I'd have to say that a lot of what Senator Bernardi has said I have no dispute with at all, and I think many on this side of parliament would agree with much of what Senator Bernardi said. He talks about an honour board for those who have done something about reducing debt and getting the finances back into action. Of course, the first nominee for that would be Mr Scott Morrison, who has achieved that sort of approach to Australia's economy. I very much agreed with Senator Bernardi when he said that the coalition government was very proud of its economic track record. We are. Senator Bernardi and I were both members of a government some years ago that actually paid off debt, that actually ran the books at a surplus. For many years, the Howard government managed the books of the country so that we were able to put aside credits. We had surpluses for several years and, when we left office in 2007, there was $60 billion in the bank—$60 billion in credit, in the piggy bank. And that was as a result of good work by the coalition government, of which both Senator Bernardi and I were part in those days. Had we stayed in government, that financial management would have continued and the surplus of $60 billion would have grown. But, unfortunately, the people of Australia elected Mr Rudd, with a lot of promises and a lot of excitement. We then saw the country's finances dip into almost financial ruin. We saw deficits that, as Senator Bernardi rightly said, rose every year under Treasurer Wayne Swan, supposedly the world's greatest Treasurer. Those of us who were around then will recall that each budget Mr Swan would promise that in the next year we'd be moving into surplus, if not the year after. Of course, we never did. Each year the budget deficit went up. So that's why I think we should nominate Mr Scott Morrison, our current Treasurer, for this honour board that Senator Bernardi talks about. In 2017-18, the deficit has been reduced to $18.2 billion, and next year it will be reduced to $14.5 billion. That's the smallest deficit since surpluses were delivered back under the time of the Howard government. The budget is forecast to return to balance in 2019-20 at $2.2 billion, increasing the projected surplus to $11 billion in 2020-21 and $16.6 billion in 2021-22. They're not just words. We've shown over the last few budgets that we can bring down Labor's deficit, and we estimate that we will continue back to the old Howard government days of having surpluses and putting money aside in the piggy bank. Senator Bernardi mentioned just a few programs of what could be done and what couldn't be done. But, of course, this government has done the work and not just talked about it. It has not just made fine speeches but actually done the work. In the Labor years we saw those surpluses I mentioned that the Howard government had accumulated evaporate into deficits, with Australia's gross debt increasing at an average rate of 33.9 per cent a year. If the coalition government, when it took office, had continued to build on that debt at those levels, the gross national debt would currently have reached $1 trillion. But the Turnbull government is acting to ensure Australia's financial sustainability by returning the budget to balance in 2019-20 and tackling rising debt. Since the coalition came into government we've acted to cut growth in our gross debt by over 75 per cent to less than eight per cent in the last budget. So we've turned the corner on debt, with net debt expected to peak this year at 18.6 per cent of GDP and, over the forward estimates, net debt is expected to decline by over $30 billion to be at about 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2028-29. For the first time in many years the government no longer needs to borrow to pay for everyday expenses. Senator Bernardi mentioned rightly that under the Labor government we were actually borrowing money just to run the normal functions of government and we were actually borrowing money to pay interest on the money that the Labor Party government had borrowed previously. Important programs, such as Medicare and NDIS, and funding for medicines, schools and hospitals are all essentials for Australia and Australians rely upon them. That's why the coalition government is ensuring they are funded sustainably and not through borrowing. Government borrowing is instead funding productive investments in priority infrastructure and upgrading our defence forecasts. That is, of course, an appropriate use of borrowed money: for infrastructure that makes our country more productive, and for defence projects that not only keep Australia safe but are building a substantial defence materiel industry in this country—something Labor talked about for six years and did absolutely nothing about. Under the coalition government—the Turnbull government—that defence industry manufacturing is ramping up, and we will have a defence industry shipbuilding program in place in this country for the first time for a long time. This is all about creating jobs, strengthening the economy and ensuring Australia remains internationally competitive. Labor are shameless and hypocritical when it comes to debt. Mr Shorten should clearly set out which infrastructure projects and major defence projects he would scrap if elected. He should also come clean on whether he would draw down on the Future Fund early—a decision which could only drive up debt for future generations of taxpayers. Mr Shorten is promising the world to everybody but says he's going to make cuts to pay for it. We know, because he is a Labor leader, that he's not to be believed. If he is serious about it, he should say which of the infrastructure projects he is going to cut. Is it the Pacific Highway? Is it the Bruce Highway? Is it major bridges that are being built? Is it defence expenditure? Which are the projects that Mr Shorten would cut to fund the extravagant promises that he is already making? He also should clarify whether he would draw down from the Future Fund. That, of course, would be disastrous for this country. It's important to refute Senator Bernardi's claims in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. It used to be called one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It is still a magnificent spectacle. It's a magnificent living organism. It's something that has been very, very carefully managed by the Australian government, particularly coalition governments, since it was first declared a marine park by a Liberal government several decades ago. We have a commitment to ensure not only that the Barrier Reef remains well managed but that those international players, in their own somewhat benighted approaches to these things, who can affect tourists who come to the reef—not the reef, I might say—believe that the Australian government is doing things. We've committed substantial money to things like the crown of thorns starfish, research and the green zones. The Australian Institute of Marine Science—again, something that was set up by a Liberal government in the past—does wonderful work on the Barrier Reef. Those who would scoff are obviously from Sydney; they've probably never even been to the Barrier Reef. I, who live next to it, know that the Australian Institute of Marine Science does a wonderful job in managing all of our marine areas and particularly the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, over many years, has managed the reef very well. The lies by the Greens political party and some in the Labor Party that the reef is dying are simply that: lies. Yet, regrettably, the message from the Greens political party, the Australian Conservation Foundation and others that the reef is dead has been relayed around the world. This has meant that some European and North American tourists are not now coming to Australia, because they believe the lies of the Greens political party that the reef is dead. But I can take anyone to most parts of the reef and show that it is still a wonderful asset that Australia has and that it is being very, very well managed. My only regret is that there are some in Australia who continue, in a very treacherous way, to undermine Australia and its industries and the thousands and thousands of people who rely on the Barrier Reef for their living. These treacherous people within Australia will continue to tell lies about the Barrier Reef, when the government is clear—and always has been very clear—in its approach to protecting the Barrier Reef. What I'm saying is not just said by me, of course. In my drawer here I have a lovely brochure put out by one of the marine conservation groups. I can't put my hand on it just now, but I have mentioned it in the past. A group of marine science and conservation groups—the more sensible ones—put out a very glossy brochure congratulating Liberal governments over the years on what they have done for our marine environment in Australia. The money that's recently been allocated to the Barrier Reef is a continuation of that. The only criticism I've received about those substantial investments in the Barrier Reef has been from people who live up there who have said to me, 'Ian, why are we spending this money, because the reef's pretty good as it is?' These are people who go out there every day of the week. Notwithstanding that, there are always things we can improve and there is always additional science we can fund. I'm pleased to say that the Australian Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University in Townsville and Cairns are continuing to do work looking at practical things like seeing whether genetic modification would help reefs in Queensland to be like those in the warmer waters of the Red Sea, where corals abound but in very much warmer waters. There has to be work done on why corals can live in the warmer waters of the Red Sea but don't do so well in the Coral Sea—although evidence given to a committee that Senator Whish-Wilson chaired, from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, actually debunked the suggestion that the waters were warming in the Coral Sea. The evidence is on Hansard from a scientist from GBRMPA saying that the waters in the last two years have in fact been one degree colder than in the previous year. The money that we spend on the Barrier Reef is important for all Australians. Senator Bernardi also mentioned that the coalition had ignored the plight of farmers. Well, he knows—he was a member of the coalition for many years—that this is a government which understands that farmers are the people who feed and clothe Australia, and not only Australia but the world, and we have always recognised the wonderful job that our farmers do within Australia and with the goods they export to feed and clothe the world. We are very conscious about droughts. Again as Senator Bernardi knows, and as the coalition and Mr Turnbull have recently demonstrated, where money is needed it will be provided. We will find it. Indeed, with the last $190 million, I think the Prime Minister said that, if more money were needed, more money would be made available. Senator Bernardi did make a good point—that, if we had some more dams, if we had some better management of the huge amount of water that falls, particularly in Northern Australia, then some of the drought issues could be ameliorated. Senator Bernardi would know that the Turnbull government have done water feasibility studies in many parts of Australia, but I'll talk about Queensland. We've proposed the Rookwood Weir, with a feasibility study on the Hells Gates dam outside Townsville and Charters Towers, on the Burdekin River. We've proposed the Urannah Dam and the Nullinga Dam, feasibility studies being at Cave Hill and Big Rocks, on the Burdekin River near Charters Towers. All of those the Commonwealth has promoted, with considerable finance to those feasibility studies. Unfortunately, under the Constitution, only state governments can do work on dams and on rivers and streams. So, whilst we can fund them and whilst we can urge, it needs a state government to do it, and regrettably in Queensland we have a Labor government that's kept in power by the Greens political party, which just finds dams anathema. Labor Party people agree that they should be built, but they haven't got the courage to stand up to the Greens political party, which keeps the Queensland Labor government in power. So we don't have any dams in Queensland. And, as much as the federal government can continue to promote and offer to pay for weirs and dams, until the Queensland government makes the decision, there's little that can be done. But I agree with Senator Bernardi: we should be doing more of that and, in that way, trying to droughtproof the country in these difficult times. Whilst I understand the sentiments of Senator Bernardi's bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018, it's not one that really needs attention at this time, because the Commonwealth government, the current government, the Turnbull government, is doing what Senator Bernardi seeks. We are reducing government waste—expenditure on programs that Labor just threw cash at like confetti. In the Labor days, remember the batts in the ceiling? That wasn't planned at all. In fact, they put in batts that made houses catch on fire and indeed killed a couple of workers. Remember the school halls program? It wouldn't have been a bad program except that it wasn't managed, and the rip-offs that occurred in the construction of many of those school halls are legend. So we've cut back on wasteful expenditure. We can now do the current work of government without borrowing, and that's why, of course, we have retained our AAA credit rating as a government from all three major credit-rating agencies, making Australia one of only 10 countries in the world to have that AAA credit rating. You don't get that sort of rating if the rating agencies think that the economy is mismanaged or that we need debt ceilings. They are looking at the actions of the Turnbull government. Actions always speak louder than words. We've reduced deficits in the last couple of budgets, and we're projected, easily, to return to surplus the year after next. 10:52 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales What can you say when you're following Senator Bernardi and Senator Macdonald? I see Senator Macdonald leaving the chamber. No wonder the electorate up in North Queensland dumped Senator Macdonald—after that diatribe and load of nonsense that he's just gone through. I think what Senator Bernardi has outlined here is the division amongst conservative forces in this country. This is simply a stunt from Senator Bernardi. This is about Senator Bernardi trying to promote the Australian Conservatives over the coalition government. Senator Bernardi nods. Well, you know; that's right. This is simply a stunt. It's about creating more division and more problems for this coalition government. Senator Bernardi, this government doesn't need any help from you to get itself into trouble. This government doesn't need any help from you to demonstrate that it's divided and is an absolute rabble of a government. But you've done that. I can understand why you're doing that. But this is a stunt. The irony is that you, Senator Bernardi, supported putting a cap on debt in the first place. And this is debt that, for the first time in Australia's history, has crashed through the half-a-trillion-dollar mark. This is a government who self-proclaim that they are great economic managers, but they are always amongst the worst economic managers that ever came to place in this country. Debt is going to stay above half a trillion dollars all the way across the medium term in this country. The debt has gone through the roof under the coalition's watch, under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The debt has gone through the roof. We don't see any mention of the budget deficit now from the government, do we? When they were in opposition all they wanted to do was talk about budget deficits. Over the last financial year the budget deficit has become six times larger than the government predicted in their first infamous 2014 budget. And we all remember the 2014 budget, don't we? It was the budget where they tried to increase the problems for pensioners in this country. They tried to force young people in this country to survive for six months without any support. The 2014 budget cut expenditure on education, cut expenditure on health and cut expenditure on housing and homelessness. It was a disaster of a budget. That's how this government came to power, with an austerity budget. We hear them warbling on about their great economic management. Well, let's look at their economic management over this period of time. Firstly, there was the austerity budget. That was the first position that they took—the one that I've just outlined. Everybody remembers that first Abbott budget. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said he supported every aspect of the budget. He said to an interviewer, 'You ask me about any aspect of that budget and I'll support it.' That's the hypocrisy of Prime Minister Turnbull. And yet, when he knifed Prime Minister Abbott in the back, he said that his great economic position would be to increase the GST, the goods and services tax. That's what came from Malcolm Turnbull: he would increase the GST, which would impact more on families than the Prime Minister's rich mates at Point Piper. He would hammer ordinary Australian workers by increasing the GST. That lasted about a week, and then the Prime Minister was forced to pull that off because no-one was going to support it. That was his first attempt to change economic direction and it didn't last longer than a week. His next great economic position was to hand taxing powers to the states. He was going to move the government out of taxing and hand taxing powers to the states. That might have lasted about two days and then he had to ignominiously retreat from that position. Where are we now with this government? Senator Macdonald says they're such great economic managers. What's the latest position? Handing $80 billion to big business and $17 billion to the banks, with the hope that trickle-down economics will mean that working people in this country get a pay increase. What a load of nonsense. I just cannot stomach those senators across on the other side when they get up and talk about economic management when they have been such failures over so many years in economic management. They have been absolutely hopeless. The budget deficit is six times larger than when they came to government—double the amount the government first predicted. Debt and deficit levels have got to where they are under this government, and, until only recently, Senator Bernardi was a member of this government. Let's not forget what happened in December 2013. The government did a deal with the Greens—those champions of fiscal responsibility—to abolish the previous cap on debt. And who voted to support this deal with the Greens? None other than Senator Bernardi. So we won't be taking any lectures from him or from Senator Macdonald on fiscal rectitude, just like the arbitrary tax cap that this government has seen fit to put into policy. What will this actually achieve? Let's be clear. Unlike the government, which has its big-business tax cuts and big-income tax cuts that largely benefit high-income earners out in the never-never, Labor has a proper plan to get the budget back to a sustainable footing. Through our plans to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax, reform discretionary trusts, cap deductions on managing tax affairs, deal with multinational tax reform and reform dividend imputation, we are able to fund essential services that ordinary families in this country need so badly. We will fund decent education funding and decent health funding. We're the ones that'll do that. We're the ones that are looking after housing and homelessness. We're the ones that are saying we will invest in TAFE to give working-class kids in this country an opportunity to get an education and get a job. It's Labor that are the people that are taking the hard decisions, and doing the hard yards on economic decisions in this country—not the nonsense we heard from Senator Macdonald. Is it any wonder that Senator Macdonald's own people in Queensland wouldn't support him for another term in this parliament? He got dumped. And we just saw the reason he got dumped—his nonsense, his simply parroting the rubbish that he parrots every time he's in here. Labor has been accused here of being bad economic managers. Let me tell you: go back to what the International Monetary Fund said only a few years ago. This is not some left-wing mob out there supporting the Labor Party; this is the International Monetary Fund. It identified only two periods of what it described as 'fiscal profligacy'—that means spending badly and not looking after the money and the tax that comes in. Guess when those two periods of fiscal profligacy were? They were under former Prime Minister John Howard. This is from the International Monetary Fund. Senator Bernardi was part of that government and Senator Macdonald was part of that government. So when the IMF said there were two times in recent years when there had been problems with government spending, they were under John Howard and, also, the worst Treasurer we've ever had—the weakest Treasurer we've ever had—Peter Costello. They were under Howard and Costello. They were the ones that were pushing the bad economic decisions. The first one was in 2003, at the start of the mining boom, when John Howard splashed money about as if there was no tomorrow. And then, in the final years in office, between 2005 and 2007, former Prime Minister John Howard—along with former Treasurer Peter Costello—in an absolute panic to try and hold on to government, splashed money around as if there was no tomorrow. The IMF saw this, and the IMF said that those were the two eras when there was absolute fiscal incompetence in this country. It was when Senator Bernardi was part of the Howard government and when Senator Macdonald was part of the Howard government. That's when the nonsense went on in this country. That's when we didn't invest for the future. That's when we didn't put in for proper education and health funding—under the Howard-Costello government, in which Senator Macdonald and Senator Bernardi were players. Senator Macdonald was a minister in that government. The economists from the IMF's fiscal affairs department found the only other year of profligate spending during the past six decades took place during the conservative government of Robert Menzies. If you want to look at fiscal profligacy, if you want to look at governments that can't look after the community, if you want to look at governments that just throw the money around, look at John Howard and Robert Menzies. They're the ones that have done all the damage to the economy. It was John Howard and Peter Costello who locked in the deficit for this country for years to come because they had no idea what was good for the country. They had no idea how to handle public funds. All they wanted to do was save their own necks. And I can tell you, Senator Bernardi, you know what's going to happen; the public do not want these tax cuts to big business and, if anyone were listening, they would back off. But we'll get Senator Cormann saying these tax cuts to big business will continue regardless of the effects they might have on the economy. We certainly know one effect it won't have: it won't increase the wages of working-class Australians in this country. We know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. We know that the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann want to continue to try to get these cuts for their big-business mates. But we know that that won't go through the Senate. We're pretty confident that that won't go through the Senate. So I'll tell you what's going to happen after it doesn't go through the Senate. All this argument about fiscal prudence and looking after public money will disappear when the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann set about handing out handouts to every pressure group in the country. We know that's what's going to happen. They're going to do exactly the same that John Howard did when he was trying to stay in office. They will throw the cash around, and let's hear what Senator Bernardi says about that when that starts to happen. The Turnbull government in panic will throw the cash around and try to buy their way back into office, but I think the Australian public are well aware that this government has absolutely no capacity to look after working families in this country. The only people they want to look after are themselves, and this Prime Minister is a prime example of that. He will say anything and he will do anything to try to maintain his position of power and privilege as the Prime Minister of this country. If only he could use the power and privilege of prime ministership in this country to benefit working families. But he can't do that, because he is under control. He is controlled by the worst elements of the National Party and the worst elements of the Liberal Party. His new favourite, Senator Pauline Hanson, controls the economic future of this government. What an absolute disgrace. What a position we find ourselves in, with one of the weakest prime ministers this country has ever seen, with a Treasurer—Scott Morrison—who doesn't know what he's going to do next, with no plan B other than splashing money around as they did in the past to try to buy themselves back into power. That's exactly the position you will find with this government. There's no argument about that. We know what's being geared up for and we know that's what's going to happen. This is a government with no economic credibility. It's got no social credibility either. It's got no credibility when it comes to looking after working people that are doing it tough, workers facing wage stagnation, workers battling to pay their bills. Look at what's happening in terms of climate change policy in this country. What an absolute nonsense it has been from this government. They're the ones that have stopped any certainty taking place in this country for investment. For as long as this coalition government have been in government, there has never been investment certainty. With all the right-wing nut jobs sitting on the other side of this parliament coming after— A government senator interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 You're getting a bit testy! Senator Bernardi G0D Point of order: after the statement by the President this morning that another senator referring to his opponents as 'right-wing nut jobs' is completely unparliamentary, I would ask you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, to request that Senator Cameron withdraw such a slur. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 I do concur that it is unparliamentary. Senator Cameron, would you like to withdraw that reflection on your colleagues—Senator Bernardi, in particular—in this chamber, particularly reflecting on the President's comments this morning? Senator CAMERON AI6 On the point of order: I wasn't just describing Senator Bernardi; I was describing more senators. I wasn't targeting any individual senator. I think the public would understand that this is the truth. They are nut jobs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Reflecting on the President's comments this morning in particular, it is unparliamentary. Senator CAMERON AI6 If it assists the Senate, I will withdraw. The economic incompetence, the right-wing radicals on the other side—what a pathetic mob they are! They are an absolute rabble of a government. I hope that's okay to say, because I think that's pretty right. They are being dragged from pillar to post by the extremists on the other side. Senator Bernardi, the No. 1 Trump fan in Australian politics, is out there trying to learn from President Trump in the US—create more division, create problems for the economy and don't worry about what the implications are. It is a disastrous situation. The only way this can be fixed is with the election of a Shorten government at the next election. The sooner this rabble of a government go to an election, the better. The sooner they get out and allow the Australian people to make a choice for stability and good economic management, the better. The Prime Minister went out and said that these recent by-elections in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia were a test of his leadership. He failed that test. Senator Cormann went out and said that the by-elections were a test of the tax cut policy. Senator Cormann, you failed that test. This government should pack their bags, go to an election and let the country become a better country, a decent country and a fairer country, not a country dominated by the supporters of big business and the banks. That's what this mob are: the supporters of big business, the supporters of the banks, the supporters of the people who would fill their own wallets at the expense of ordinary working people in this country. They are an absolute disgrace. For Senator Bernardi to get up and have this bill on here today after he took exactly the opposite position in government is an example of how crazy it's getting in this place. This is a crazy government. They don't get it. They don't understand how working people are doing it tough. All they want to do is look after the big end of town and look after the banks. 11:14 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I can't go past also highlighting that Senator Cameron himself, for a moment there in his speech on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018, also sounded like a right-wing nut job. Let's put this into context. Senator Cameron AI6 I've never tried to cut penalty rates like you! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Cameron, you've had your opportunity. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 The only side who has cut penalty rates, Senator Cameron, is your side, including the wannabe Prime Minister. I'm very happy to go there anytime you want to have that debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Senator Whish-Wilson, I would remind you to address your remarks through the chair. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Fine. Let's go back a few years, as Senator Cameron highlighted, to when the Greens supported raising the debt ceiling. In 2013 the government came to us and asked whether we would support raising the debt ceiling. It's very important to put this in context. That was a time when we had a so-called debt-and-deficit crisis in this country. That was a time when we had the zombie budget cuts and the Commission of Audit, which was looking at slashing expenditure everywhere—GP co-payments, education, hospital funding, you name it. That was a time when, more than any time I've been in the Senate, we needed to have the debate about debt and why debt is not a dirty word. Servicing debt is the issue, not the total amount of debt; it's the ability to repay and service the debt. I would've picked Senator Cameron as being a Keynesian until today. Getting up here and talking about cutting debt and cutting deficit—that's exactly what I heard from Senator Cormann. It's exactly what I heard from our previous Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey. And it is really disappointing to hear Labor peddling the same mantra in this place about debt and deficit. All debt is not bad. We have had a mature debate in this place, over the last 18 months, about good debt and bad debt, and the Greens have led this debate in the last few years. Debt, if spent correctly—if it's invested in education, health care and a social safety net—has a lot of benefits for our country. Debt, if it's for long-term, productivity-enhancing infrastructure spending, can not only create jobs; it can also have a lot of benefits for our country that go beyond simple neoclassical economics. Over nearly 18 months, I chaired a select inquiry into debt financing and the infrastructure gap in this country. We produced an excellent report, talking about why we should spend more money—more debt, capital spending, good debt—on long-term projects and have the infrastructure revolution that we need in this country. There is a gap of hundreds of billions—possibly, depending on who you speak to, even trillions—of dollars in infrastructure financing and spending in this country, money that we could be spending to create jobs and to futureproof our communities. This is something that the Greens have argued. So, if we're going to talk about debt, let's go beyond the simple hard-right, conservative, neoliberal agenda and talk about why we need debt, how we service it, where it's spent and why we need that investment in our communities, our people and our economy. Then we can have a sensible debate about debt. I totally understand that debt is something that needs to be serviced and we need to have the ability to do that. If you want to have a look at a report that talks about a totally new way of financing debt and infrastructure spending in this country then go to that select inquiry into infrastructure financing. I've got to say, I was very proud, in 2016, during the double-dissolution election, that my party, the Greens, took an excellent initiative on setting up a government owned infrastructure bank. If I remember rightly, Labor had a similar version, which I think they might have called the 'concrete bank', which used $10 billion of public funding to better spend on infrastructure. We went a lot further than that. We estimated we needed at least $80 billion of new long-term infrastructure spending, and we put up a structure to finance and fund that spending—a publicly owned infrastructure bank. In the same way, I'm very proud that we've also put up a structure for a publicly owned bank—a retail bank—recently, which we'll continue to prosecute. These are ideas that will work, and these are ideas that I have no doubt will be taken up again in the future. All debt is not bad. Debt is not a dirty word. Let's go beyond this hard-right, conservative, neoliberal agenda of talking about debt in that way. I am disappointed that the Labor Party, especially Senator Cameron, have come in here today and peddled that mantra. Question negatived. Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018 12

Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018

Second Reading 12 11:20 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I rise to make a contribution in the second reading debate on the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018. Essentially, this bill replicates the private members' bill that was introduced by the member for Farrer, the honourable Sussan Ley, and Labor's amendment to the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018, which the government is currently refusing to debate in the House of Representatives. I suppose, to go back to Senator Cameron's contribution, this does highlight some tension and division in the current government. They have a member of their own side, a former minister, proposing a way forward which has caused division in their ranks and has caused the orderly and proper conduct of the parliament to be disrupted. Every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate has received an inordinate amount of emails on this particular subject. There are very few emails that are coming in in support of the live export trade continuing in its current form, but there is an enormous amount of community wide feeling about animals being treated in an inappropriate way. So I think it's important at the outset to just put on the Hansard, on the record, some of the fast facts which you can obtain from the Meat and Livestock Australia fact sheet. There are 37.2 million head of breeding ewes aged one year and older as at 30 June 2016. That's from the ABARES agricultural commodities report. The gross value of Australian lamb and mutton production, including live exports, in 2016-17 was estimated at $3.9 billion—once again, from ABARES agricultural commodities, June 2017. Lamb and mutton production, including live exports, contributed six per cent to the total farm value of $62.8 billion in 2016-17. Once again, those figures are sourced from the ABARES agricultural commodities, June 2017, report. So, clearly, we have more sheep than we can eat, even though Australians have amongst the highest per capita consumption of meat. So we need to export it. That's very, very clear. In fact, in 2016-17 Australia exported 57 per cent of the total lamb production and 92 per cent of the total mutton production. The total value of these exports was $1.94 billion, and the value of mutton exports was $720 million. Australia's live sheep exports were valued at $234 million in 2016-17. We produce approximately eight per cent of the world's lamb and mutton supply, we are amongst the largest exporters of sheep meat in the world, and we are the third-largest live sheep exporter. I think it's important to get those facts on the table, because what we've been asked to do is immediately—immediately—cease live export. I think what we should be doing immediately is not to export in the Northern Hemisphere summer. It is unconscionable to put many, many thousands of sheep into intolerable conditions, such as 50 degree heat. I have had the opportunity of visiting the Middle East with the Honourable Sharman Stone, Ms Teresa Gambaro and Ms Maria Vamvakinou. We went there on a trade delegation, and one of the issues we looked at in Kuwait, in the United Arab Emirates and in Saudi Arabia was the live sheep export position. It became very clear as we went through those Middle Eastern economies that they do buy lots of sheep from around the world. In some places, like Kuwait, they're slaughtered by halal methods and then distributed back to families. A family will, if they like, go to the abattoir and pick out the sheep that they particularly want, and then it gets slaughtered and delivered to their house. In Saudi Arabia we came across a vastly different situation. In Saudi Arabia they have enough resources—their bank accounts are full enough—to purchase whatever they want from wherever they want. They were very, very critical of Australia putting in place animal welfare standards. They said: 'We buy the sheep; it's our business what happens after that. You shouldn't be looking down the line.' Our position was to respectfully push back on that and say: 'Look, we are exporting sheep, but we're not going to export them in an uncontrolled way. Our experience in the live export of cattle was catastrophic. We need acceptable standards in the way that our animals are delivered to other parts of the world.' It's fair to say that, after an eight- or nine-day trip, we were no closer to agreement. The Saudis, in their world, have their standards, and we have our standards—basically, we were never going to meet in the middle. I think what really was unsaid in all of those discussions was that the fact they weren't buying as many Australian sheep is more driven by the value of our dollar. As our dollar came off a higher rate and went down to a more long-term average of about 70 cents, all of a sudden our sheep became much more attractive to them, and they looked at getting the trade back to where they had it historically. But we do know that there are farmers who are heavily reliant on turning off mutton and making a profit out of their agribusiness. This is going to be challenged all the way over the next few years. It's very clear. I can't win the argument in my own household. My sons, daughters and grandchildren look at me askance if I try and defend the live sheep export trade; they just see animals suffering. They're not putting up with it and they'll vote, clearly, with the way they feel about animal welfare. So change is coming; there is no doubt about that. The industry needs to change. It's not a simple argument. If you look at the statistics in this agribusiness, people are going to have to transition. We're going to have to have high standards if we continue to export live sheep. It's simply that the model that we've relied on is fundamentally broken. It's got three basic flaws. It is heavily reliant on the dreaded Northern Hemisphere summer trade—a trade which is basically incompatible with reasonable welfare standards. There is no real prospect of getting reasonable animal welfare standards in that Northern Hemisphere summer. Don't be emotional about it; the science will tell you that. There's no way you can pack a ship full of that many sheep, take it into 50 degrees and have any sort of welfare standards. So it should be immediately banned in that period of the northern summer. There's no argument about that. I think the science is telling us that. The trade externalises animal welfare cruelty. The premiums earned by exporters as a result of cruel conditions like excessive stocking densities are externalised in the form of higher-than-normal payments to sheepmeat producers. This, in turn, can place local processing at an economic disadvantage. So consumer preference and community tolerance for the poor treatment of animals is not going away. It is not going away. It is a widely held, deeply felt, supported position right across the whole community. You can have a discussion about it in your own family or you can have a discussion about it in any group that you're in, but 90 per cent of people now are looking at improved, humane animal welfare standards. That's just a fact of life. I digress a bit, but one of the great things I had the opportunity of looking at when I visited a school in Cummins in regional South Australia was a led-steer competition. In rural Australia, this is the sort of activity that goes on. A led-steer competition involves a young student who's charged with looking after an animal, a bullock. The competition is called 'Hoof and Hook'. They look after a steer for the entire seven or eight months. It's their job to make sure that it's in good shape, that it's putting on enough weight and that it's fed properly, and then, eventually, it's taken to the abattoir and the quality of the meat is judged. I dare say, there are not a lot of students in Australia who have the opportunity to go through that type of economic activity. I dare say that this is predominantly a rural activity. But I would say that those people have a great regard for animal welfare and a great understanding and respect for meat, which we eat: safer, better quality and with better taste. You generally don't get that in your suburban school. What's happened is that a member of the government, the Hon. Sussan Ley, has proposed a private member's bill in the other House and it is likely to have some capacity to be supported. It's very clear that it has support and it's caused enormous division in the other place, with some of the other members of the Liberal Party and the National Party saying, 'Look, we make a quid out of live exports. We're just going to keep doing it.' That's caused division in their own party. The government took the legislation out. Despite the fact that we didn't have four members in that place, they were still at risk of losing. It highlights the division and the dysfunction of the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull's government; it really does. Members and senators from no fewer than five of the nine parties represented in the Australian parliament have expressed support for the objectives of the bill: an immediate stop to northern summer live sheep trade and the phase-out of the balance of the trade within the next five years. I think that's a very important point. Mr Acting President Sterle, as a Western Australian senator, you would well know that there are many agribusinesses in Western Australia that are heavily reliant on this trade and we need to help them transition away from it because, clearly, the Australian community will not support images of sheep effectively boiling in their own skin. That is not what Australia is about; that is not what anybody in this country is going to put up with, and they make that very plain, almost every day, in an email chain to my office. During the last sitting of the House of Representatives, the member for Hunter foreshadowed his intention to move the main provisions of this bill as an amendment to the bill the government had introduced to increase penalties for the breaches of animal welfare standards in live export. However, the government withdrew the bill from the House program following the member for Hunter's announcement. It was a bill that, at one time, they described as urgent. It looked like getting up, despite the fact that we were down four members in that place, and it looked like getting up and overturning the government's position, so they withdrew it. The only reason they withdrew it is that they were fearful that the member for Hunter's amendments would succeed. In other words, a sufficient number of coalition MPs would defy the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and support the amendments. That was despite, as I said earlier, the Labor Party being four members down in the House of Representatives, pending the by-elections, and despite the absence of Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo—another well-known supporter of the amendments. Basically, as Senator Cameron touched on before, the government are clearly dysfunctional. A member of the government brought on a private member's bill to take action on an important issue. The government are paralysed and can't act like a normal, clear-thinking executive. It's very, very clear that the Northern Hemisphere summer has had catastrophic consequences. We cannot close our eyes to that. It is very widely held and deeply felt in the Australian community that something needs to be done. That something that needs to be done is to immediately stop sending sheep to the Northern Hemisphere summer. That's very, very clear. But we also need to be cognisant of the fact that people make a living growing sheep and they're allowed to sell sheep—but the current regulations need to be changed. A very important review was done into this trade, and I think it is instructive to put it on the public record. The review stated: Overall, this review concludes that the live export industry is at the crossroads. What has occurred in the past must not happen in the future, and industry must therefore retreat to a ‘safe’ position, consolidate and then build a new way forward based on science, trust and performance. The central issues relevant to sheep health and welfare during shipping to the Middle East in the months of May to October are stocking density, ventilation and thermoregulation in the sheep. That is very succinct and clear advice from the eminent person who reviewed this, Dr Michael McCarthy. It is very, very clear, succinct and easy to understand, and I think the agribusinesses that are involved in this trade understand these issues. But it appears that the minister, the Hon. David Littleproud, has been incapable of taking reasonable action against people who are not obeying the regulations that currently exist, and that is an absolute disgrace. It is another sign of the dysfunction and disunity in this government. If the shipping company is not obeying the regulations and if, as was reported, the department is not policing this and ensuring that the regulations are honoured, we have a catastrophic situation—we have a perfect storm. We have good producers caught up in the crossfire of a department that hasn't fulfilled its obligation to ensure that things are done in a proper and coherent way; we have a shipper who's not done the right thing; and then we have a minister who says, 'Oh, I can't do anything about it; I can't enforce this.' He was critical of his department, but he should have shown leadership and taken ownership of this issue and moved to immediately refuse to issue permits to people who were not complying with appropriate regulations. Secondly, he should have introduced regulations that would take the prospect of sheep being boiled alive in the Northern Hemisphere's summer off the table—just off the table. This argument is not going away. This is a well-resourced, well thought out campaign by the animal welfare people—and they've got plenty of stuff to work with. It's impossible to defend the current situation. You'd have to turn a blind eye to absolute inhumane cruelty, and no-one in this place should do that. No-one in the community wants us to do that and no-one in the community is doing that. I would not have a day go past when I don't have an exhortation from a constituent in South Australia saying, 'Act now and get rid of this live export trade.' We have to act promptly and we have to act humanly, but we do have to recognise that it is a very large business and people may need to transition away from it. I am not talking about transitioning away from cruelty. Cruelty should be stopped. The inhumane treatment of animals should be stopped. That should be done by regulation and enforcement by the department and the minister. We should act very quickly on this issue of exports in the Northern Hemisphere summer. It is incomprehensible that the Prime Minister hasn't grabbed this issue by the—for want of a better word—horns and just said, 'No; Northern Hemisphere summer exports are out.' That would defuse some of the tensions in this argument. It won't defuse all of the tension in this argument, but it will defuse some of the tension in this argument. The Prime Minister should also look at some of the producers, particularly those that I have read of in Western Australia, who would be hurt by this decision. They should be encouraged to look at other ways of dealing with their mutton, particularly. I know that a number of countries in the world simply want live exports. That's always going to be a contested space, unless we can do it humanely and professionally and ensure that the regulations we put in place are carried out right to the end of the chain. I know that that is a really difficult task. I think we've made substantial improvements in the export of live cattle. I've spoken to many people in the Northern Territory who are in the export of live cattle; they want to see their animals get to the end of the chain in a good shape and be slaughtered in a professional and humane way. The challenge in the live sheep export is enormous. We saw the catastrophe of the sheep that were diverted, I think, to Bangladesh and slaughtered there because there was a disease issue and they were refused entry to a Middle Eastern port. We know what can happen. It can be catastrophic. The government should get its act together. It should take the challenge up. The Prime Minister should take this challenge up. Show some real leadership. Put this whole sector back on a more even and humane footing. 11:40 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria It's been four months since the footage of some 2½ thousand sheep dying horrifically aboard the Emanuel Exports ship Awassi Express was released to the public. That brave decision by Faisal Ullah, a young trainee ship's officer aboard the Awassi Express, to film that haunting scene showed us unequivocal proof of the torture and agonising death that sheep experience because of the live export industry in Australia. These animals died from heatstroke. They were trapped in cages so tightly packed that they couldn't move, let alone reach water. After they died, the carcasses decomposed so quickly in the stifling heat that the crew couldn't accurately assess the death toll. Individual sheep were no longer recognisable. And what's more upsetting is that successive Australian governments have allowed this profound suffering to continue, even explicitly supporting the multinational corporations involved, when any Australian farmer would be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned if they were responsible for this kind of cruelty. I'm pleased to be speaking to this bill, which lays out a pathway for transitioning away from these kinds of live exports sea voyages. I have to say that my office has been absolutely flooded with support for an end to this cruel practice. The Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018, co-sponsored by Senator Lee Rhiannon and Senators Hinch and Storer, will ensure that, after the five-year transition period, no Australian sheep will suffer this horrific treatment ever again. But I shouldn't have to make this speech. I should not have to stand here and call on this government to extend basic protections to living creatures. This appalling practice should have ended in 2011 when the Greens first introduced our bill into parliament to ban live sheep exports. To successive governments' national shame, we have seen them bow to corporate influence and refuse to prosecute or sanction these clear breaches of federal animal welfare laws. In fact, in 2008, Emanuel Exports was found guilty of cruelty under WA laws but had to be acquitted because state animal welfare legislation is suspended by federal laws that take over when the live export ships leave Australian shores. The federal government has known for at least a decade that this grisly, horrific practice was taking place, but the Labor and Liberal parties' gutless refusal to stand up to these wealthy corporations has seen it continue. It's heartening that we have individual members of both sides who have introduced bills with similar objectives to this one. I also welcome all of those senators who have spoken out in support of a live export ban. But again I'm asking, as is often the case in this place: why is it that we have to wait so long for the Labor Party and the coalition to do the right thing? Across the board, the Australian community has been calling for this ban for months. The government has known about these terrible animal welfare violations for years, but once again, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party have put those corporations ahead of ordinary people. This bill will kick off a five-point plan to end the barbaric trade and boost jobs in regional Australia in the process. It's backed by the meat workers union and animal welfare organisations alike. It will immediately prohibit shipments of live sheep during the hottest months in the Northern Hemisphere and voyages of 10 days or more. These are the worst of the live export voyages, responsible for the most gruesome suffering, when the hot and humid conditions consistently cause bodies to shut down and death rates to reach five to 10 times the usual mortality rates on Australian farms. After a five-year transition period this bill will prohibit all live sheep exports to or through the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea, regardless of the time of year or length of voyage. It's important to immediately end the most barbaric conditions, but we also need to recognise that inherent in the live animal export industry, whether it be cattle or sheep, is cruelty to those animals. We will continue to see more footage emerge of cruelty to cattle and sheep if this trade continues, because inherent within those industries is cruelty to animals. That's why we need to support this legislation but also, over the longer term, to end all live animal exports. We need a long-term plan to support Australian workers and businesses to successfully transition to an industry which is good for jobs and investment but, most importantly, makes it clear about what standard we will accept when it comes to the treatment of animals in this nation. We support this bill, but we want to go further. We need to ensure that, once and for all, this country bans the live animal export trade. 11:46 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland What is interesting about the speech we just heard then is that the truth has come out. This bill is the beginning of what the Left want to do to the live export animal trade in Australia. They want to shut it all down. So I speak to the people in Queensland, the cattle producers in Queensland and those in the Northern Territory, who were sent to the end by what happened back under the previous Labor-Greens government, when Joe Ludwig and Prime Minister Gillard turned off the live cattle trade to Indonesia. They turned off a sovereign country's protein intake on the basis of one television program, destroying our relationship with that country—a relationship which is still being rebuilt at the moment—destroying countless, hundreds if not thousands of lives in Queensland. But they haven't learned from that. They haven't learned from the damage that was inflicted on the people in Queensland and the Northern Territory. This bill is not a five-point plan: it's a two-point plan. They want to shut down the export of sheep to the Middle East and then, anyone in the cattle industry, they're going to come for you also. This is the first step to shutting down the live cattle trade in Queensland and the Northern Territory. I was in Normanton and Karumba a couple of weekends ago. It's great news in Karumba in terms of what's going to happen with the dredging of the inlet there so cattle can once again be exported live from the Port of Karumba to Indonesia. It's something that is going to create jobs for that community and help the economic growth of regional Queensland. But under the Greens, under the Left's attack on rural and regional Australia, these people who don't understand rural and regional Australia, who do not live in rural and regional Australia and do not understand the importance that farming has for rural and regional Australia—they want to shut it down. They do not understand the impact that this will have, once again, on people in rural and regional Australia. This bill, with its so-called five-year implementation plan and five-point plan and all the other palaver, for those who are listening at home or who read this later, know that the Left are coming for you. If you ever wonder about the difference between the Liberal National Party and those on the other side of this chamber, this is a line of demarcation. We will stand with the sheep farmers of WA. We will stand with the cattle producers of Queensland and the Northern Territory, because we believe in your right to export your produce overseas. We believe in your right to earn income. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud—who is actually my local member because we both live in regional Queensland; we both live in Warwick; he lives on one side of Warwick and I live on the other side of Warwick—has been very strong in his condemnation of this rogue company in terms of what it did in that footage that was shown. Minister Littleproud has been very strong in saying that it was unacceptable. Let's get some facts on the table. I know that the Left don't particularly like facts. They get in the way of their ideology and their misty-eyed view of the world, which they look at through their mochaccinos and their piccolos and things like that. In 2017, of the 1.7 million live sheep that were exported by sea, 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health and delivered into suitable facilities approved under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. That is a fantastic rate. When you consider what is happening in Australia at the moment, where are the tears from the Left about what's happening in drought-stricken Queensland? Where are the tears from the Greens about what's happening with the graziers in Queensland? There are no tears from them, no tears from the Left. They don't care about these people. They care about these bumper-sticker politics that you see from the Left. The trade in live sheep to the Middle East is still open and will remain so under this government. The Liberal-National Party is a strong, strong supporter of the live animal trade. We will continue to support the export of sheep to the Middle East, and we will proudly continue to support the export of cattle to Indonesia and elsewhere in the world because we are a trading nation and we will export animals because we need to make sure that we stand up for our rural communities. We need a sustainable live export trade which has good animal welfare outcomes—the trade that provides for over 10,000 rural Australian jobs, 10,000 jobs in rural and regional Australia. I know that these people on the Left don't care about rural and regional Australia. They never go there. It's like Paul Keating: they fly over it when they're going from one capital city to another to taste the difference in cappuccinos and piccolos and things like that. This trade was worth, in 2016-17, $1.6 billion. But it is the jobs that are so important for rural and regional Queensland and rural and regional WA and for Australia. They are very, very important. A ban or a phase-out of the entire industry unfairly punishes those exporters and farmers who have done no wrong. The calls to ban live exports disregard the value of this trade to our farmers and others in rural and regional Australia. Banning the live exports is simply a knee-jerk reaction, just like when Joe Ludwig and Julia Gillard were having a cappuccino or whatever it was at the Lodge that night, watching Four Corners, and decided: 'Oh, look! Here's a TV program. We don't like the outcome of this program. Let's just turn off the export of cattle to Indonesia.' What an insulting, patronising attitude the Left take—that we can just switch off a sovereign country's importation of protein. I don't think the Left realise how sanctimonious and patronising they are in how they deal with most Australians and how they deal with independent, sovereign countries. Banning livestock exports is simply a poorly considered decision and a cop-out. It takes away the livelihoods of Australians and creates food security issues for importing governments. Many farming families and others in the supply chain, including local businesses that provide transport, mustering, feed and agistment services, still remain devastated from the 2011 cattle trade suspension. We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to make sure that that public policy decision that was made by the previous Labor-Greens government, which was probably one of greatest failures of public policy in the history of this Federation, is not repeated. A massive failure in public policy has— Senator McKim interjecting— Senator McGRATH 217241 They're laughing! They're laughing. Senator McKim JKM I'm laughing at you, mate! Senator McGRATH 217241 You laugh at the graziers who committed suicide. You laugh at those people who had to walk off their land. You laugh at those. That says so much about the modern Left. They laugh. Are you listening, everybody throughout this building? The Left laugh at those people who had to commit suicide because there was nothing open for them because the live cattle trade was turned off. You lot are complete and utter— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator McGrath! Point of order, Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would know, a personal imputation of the kind that Senator McGrath just made when he said I'm laughing at people committing suicide is highly disorderly. I'd ask you to ask him to withdraw it, because it's simply not true. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator McGRATH 217241 On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I did not name the senator, so there was no personal imputation about the senator, unless he's admitting that he was laughing. I did not name him. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator McGrath, I will rule. There is no point of order, but I would urge you to ignore the interjections. Senator McGRATH 217241 It is very hard, Mr Acting Deputy President, to ignore those who laugh when— Senator McKim JKM Because you're just making stuff up. Senator McGRATH 217241 I'm making up that people committed suicide? Mr Acting Deputy President, what we are hearing here in the chamber is not just absolute ignorance but actual, shameful ignorance and, almost, a perverse gleefulness that people in Queensland didn't commit suicide. Well, I tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, they did. You can speak to anybody in Queensland who knows the impact of the ban on live cattle on Queensland. So, for the senators who are laughing, when you go to sleep tonight I want you to think about the fact that you were laughing about death. You were laughing about what graziers in Queensland have been faced with. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM Mr Acting Deputy President, it's the same point of order I made earlier, and I'd ask you to consider this as an argument: I was the only person who laughed when Senator McGrath made the comment that the 2011 decision by the Labor government was one of the greatest public policy failures in the history of Australia's Federation. That's what I was laughing at, because it's such a ludicrous claim. However, I was the only senator who laughed, and, therefore, anyone watching or listening would reasonably interpret that Senator McGrath is suggesting that I, personally, was laughing at people committing suicide, which, as I said earlier, is not true. So I would ask you to consider it in that context. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you, Senator McKim. On the point of order, Senator McGrath? Senator McGRATH 217241 Mr Acting Deputy President, it is clear that there was laughter coming from that corner of the chamber when I was talking about suicides and deaths in regional Queensland. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I'm going to help you out here, Senator McGrath: absolutely not. I heard Senator McKim laugh when you made a comment. Your comment about suicide followed on from the laugh. I don't need to consider it; I will stand by that. So I will come back to you, Senator McGrath, and I would urge you to ignore the interjections. Senator McGRATH 217241 It is very important, when any government or chamber comes to make public policy decisions, that we understand what has happened in the past and understand that failure of policy. There were many great failures in the previous Labor-Greens government—we don't have enough time. There were two in particular. They effectively opened up our borders to the people smugglers; that was the greatest failure. The second-greatest failure was what they did with the live cattle trade. For those who do not understand that, I would encourage them to go to regional Queensland. I would encourage them to go to Normanton. I would encourage them to sit down with the cattle producers and those involved in the cattle industry in rural and regional Queensland, whether in Normanton, Cloncurry, Winton or wherever it may be. I want them to sit down and understand what the ban on the live cattle trade did to them and their communities and what it actually did do in terms of producers who, sadly, took their own lives. What we're seeing with the bill that is before the chamber is a desire to extend this perverseness to the sheep industry and to the export of sheep from Western Australia to the Middle East. We know what will happen if this passes and if this chamber and this parliament approve the banning of sheep to the Middle East. As Senator Richard Di Natale says, they want to—and I wrote it down—'end all live animal exports'. That is a terrible, terrible thing to do. It is shameful that anyone in this chamber or this parliament would want to do that, because of the damage that would inflict upon rural and regional Australia. But it's not just rural and regional Australia. The damage will impact upon our economy. Ten thousand jobs depend on this sector. That's 10,000 families. How many rural communities? The flow-on effect when these jobs go—this is an industry that is worth $1.6 billion. We must continue to tackle the issues that impact upon all public policy decisions in Australia. We must improve the trade. We've got to weed out the problems. But we must support our farmers, not just throw up our hands and say, 'Look, we want to shut it all down. These farmers can go and start weaving baskets or open up a coffee shop or something like that.' That is just a failure to understand how the rural economy works. Minister Littleproud engaged Dr McCarthy to do the McCarthy review of the Middle Eastern summer trade of sheep. That was released on 17 May along with the department's response. This review gave us a map to progress immediate improvements to the current trade and into the future. All of Dr McCarthy's 23 recommendations were accepted subject to further testing and consultation on the heat-stress risk assessment recommendations. Given the proposed heat-stress model recommended by Dr McCarthy produces fluctuations in stocking densities of between 18 and 85 per cent, it requires further work, which has already commenced. In response to other recommendations of Dr McCarthy, the regulator has reduced allowable stocking densities. This means sheep are getting up to 39 per cent more space, with stocking densities reduced by up to 28 per cent. Before I go on to further points that come out of Dr McCarthy's review, I want to remind everybody who is listening that in 2017 there were 1.7 million sheep exported in the live export trade by sea, and 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health. That is a very good figure, a fantastic figure. The live animal trade to the Middle East is a very important industry. The Left want to extend this ban to the live cattle trade but it should not be implemented because we have a very, very good live animal trade. Dr McCarthy's review wants to establish the mandatory investigation of any voyage on which more than one per cent of the sheep perish; ensure all vessels carrying sheep to the Middle East during the northern hemisphere summer are equipped with automated watering systems; and place independent observers on all voyages to report back to the regulator. The review of the capability, culture and investigative powers of the independent regulator, which in this case is the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, is also near completion. Mr Philip Moss AM will report later on his investigation into the capabilities, investigative capacity and culture of the department as the independent regulator of live exports. The regulator needs the best available tools to do its job without interference. These tools include tougher new penalties to punish exporters who put profit before animal welfare and break the rules. The government would like Labor to stop playing politics and vote with us for the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018. The proposed amendments increase criminal penalties, introduce offences for directors of companies and introduce new regulatory options. Under the current act, penalties for wrongdoing in live export are a maximum of five years in prison and a $63,000 fine for individuals. For a company, the maximum fine is $315,000. These will increase to eight years in prison and a $100,000 fine for individuals and a $504,000 fine for companies. If people have done the wrong thing in relation to animal welfare—and Minister Littleproud has been very, very strong in relation to this—they should be 'nailed, not slapped on the wrist'. This is what is fascinating about the failure of the Left to understand rural and regional Australia: the best protectors of animal welfare are not those who come from the inner-city suburbs; they are the farmers themselves. If you speak to any grazier, any sheep farmer or cattle farmer, they are the ones who are in love with their animals, who want to protect their animals and make sure their animals are in the best possible health, because they know that a happy animal, an animal that is well cared for, is an animal that they can get more money for. And that's what we're here for. We want to make sure that our animals are in the best possible condition, because we want to get more money for our animals. The more money we get for our animals that we export live to the Middle East and to Indonesia means the more money that goes into our rural and regional communities—that is so important. It is rural and regional communities that are still doing it tough. Look at what's happening with the drought. Parts of Queensland, for seven years, have been in drought. In my view, it's one of the greatest natural disasters to hit Queensland in the last few decades, if not in the last century, in terms of the lack of rain that has fallen. We're not just talking about the fact that there has not been enough rain; there are parts of Queensland where it has not rained for a number of years. We have children in parts of western Queensland who have never seen rain fall from the sky. That is sad in terms of not only the impact it has upon the rural producers but also the impact it has on the small towns that are in western Queensland. What we will see with this bill, if it is passed, is another disaster hit the rural and regional industries of Queensland and Australia. Western Australia will be smashed, their sheep trade will be smashed and the sheep industry over there will be completely turned on its head, because it is false. It is false to say that those in the Middle East will suddenly accept a chilled meat trade. Minister Littleproud has met with the governments of the relevant countries in the Middle East and they have said: 'If you turn off and stop exporting your sheep to us, it means we will not take our chilled meat from you. We'll get our chilled meat from elsewhere, and we'll also get our live sheep from elsewhere.' There are a bunch of Lefties who have had a bit of a get-together and who have decided that this is a good thing to do because it's bumper sticker politics. Some emails have come in, and they're using their outrage to raise money to campaign against rural and regional Queensland when what we need is for this chamber to not smack down the sheep trade and not smack down the cattle trade but to understand what rural and regional Queensland needs. Actually, what we need is more of what the government is doing. The government has done some fantastic work in terms of supporting those who are impacted by the drought. We must understand that we're in real, real danger here of history repeating itself. Labor and the Greens destroyed the live cattle industry. They took a sledgehammer to communities across not just Queensland but also the Northern Territory and huge damage was done to those communities. In 2010, the Indonesian market imported over half-a-million head of Australian cattle, representing nearly two-thirds of all live cattle exports that year, and that was switched off via press release. Via press release we effectively declared a protein war. We turned off the protein that an independent sovereign country needed. The Left do not understand the cultural sensitivities of our trading nations and do not understand that, actually, most people in Indonesia do not have the ability to have fridges, so they want to have fresh meat from those markets. This government will strongly stand on the side of the live animal trade, both sheep and cattle. I encourage senators to oppose this bill. 12:08 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This issue is of critical importance to Western Australians. I'm glad to be able to make a contribution to the debate. In WA, the ships that depart from the Port of Fremantle that service the live sheep trade are not tucked away in some industrial area; they are in the very heart of the city of Fremantle. The trucks that drive the 65,000-odd sheep that are put on just one ship come from the farms in the east of our state. They drive through Perth's suburbs to the port. Everyone in the community can see these trucks making this journey. They've often been the subject of public debate. We often see protesters down at the port. We often see people very visibly making their livelihood from the live sheep trade, because we see the sheep being transported in these trucks. It's not so much the visibility of sheep in the trucks, but the vision that we've seen of these sheep dying at sea. It has led to resounding calls nationwide, including in Western Australia, for clear action on this issue to address the suffering of these animals. My office, like all of yours, has been inundated with emails and phone calls. Clearly during the recent by-elections in Western Australia, this was an issue that resonated with voters not only in Fremantle but also in Perth. I certainly believe that the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018 is in line with community expectation on how animals should be treated when being exported. However, the government are not delivering action on this. Despite their much-lauded statements that they would support action, they have now visibly completely gone to ground. We've seen the government not allow debate on a similar bill introduced by one of their own members, the member for Farrer, and nor will they allow debate on Labor's amendments to that bill. We have here a government so worried about disunity among their own ranks that they are denying the will of the people. Indeed, I believe they will ultimately damage industry. They're denying the will of the people to be appropriately represented in the House of Representatives and have this bill debated. We've seen a refusal to bring on debate on the bill and the amendments already introduced in the House, which has meant that the will of the parliament to phase out this trade and to stop the trade during the Middle Eastern and northern summer is being effectively denied. People like the member for Farrer can see that we need to move on this issue, so why can't this government? Again, we have a government that is vastly out of step with the community. What they are doing is delaying action on this issue, which will ultimately see industry itself suffer. The simple fact is that we have a long and proud history of sheep production in Australia. My own grandmother came from a wheat and sheep farm in Western Australia. The simple fact is that when you have such a clear and resounding community concern that says, 'There is no community mandate to allow animal exports or sheep exports in these conditions,' to continue to export sheep in those conditions in the face of that can only do the industry further damage. What it does is lock in the sentiment against the industry so that, when future issues catch up with the industry, it will be locked out, and the reaction of the community will become even more punitive. The mandate for the sheep industry and for the export industry will decline even further. That is exactly what has happened historically in this debate. The bad behaviour of exporters and the terrible incidents that have happened at sea previously have been well exposed. They've been very, very well exposed. We were supposed to see action back then. Instead, we now find ourselves having witnessed even more egregious deaths at sea of these animals and a very, very clear loss of mandate for this industry. If we don't get on with the job of transitioning the sheep industry and the sheep export industry now to create meat-processing jobs locally and to create higher animal welfare standards for sheep that are exported during the phase-out, we will be letting the industry down. No-one wants to see the continuation of exports in their current form. The evidence—the science—is absolutely crystal clear on these exports. The Australian Veterinary Association has advised that it can't assure the farmers, the Australian people or the parliament that sheep won't continue to suffer from heat stress and die during voyages between May and October, because that's when extreme heat conditions are almost guaranteed to occur. That was the evidence given to Senate estimates, which is that farmers don't want animals which they've raised and cared for to be mistreated. Unfortunately the industry has been too slow to act on this, and this is why we need to step in and act for the community and the animals in question, and also to restore faith and the good reputation of Australia's agricultural producers. We can see now that the industry does seem to be coming around. Even the National Farmers' Federation has said there may be a need for pause over the northern summer. So I can only encourage the government to get its act together and to support the legislation before the chamber today. 12:16 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I will make a brief contribution to this. It gives me the opportunity to commend the work with this legislation of not just my colleague Senator Rhiannon but also many other people from the Greens; indeed, many people from a range of parties going back to the 1980s. I point, particularly, to the groundbreaking work of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare which was set up on the motion of Don Chipp, if I recall correctly, and which did a range of inquiries, some of which were very influential in getting significant changes happening in animal welfare area in a cross-party way. Alongside that it did have a report into live export. Even back then the major welfare implications of the live export trade were clearly acknowledged across all parties by that committee. I think that was a 1985 report. Unfortunately, all these years later, despite all of the evidence of cruelty being even worse than people had assumed at the time, we've had government after government not just continuing the trade but actually looking for ways to expand it. It really is a great tribute to the many people in the wider community who have continued to campaign to end this cruelty, which is intrinsic and embedded in the nature of the trade. When I was in this chamber previously, one of the largest petitions of the entire decade, with hundreds of thousands of signatures, was tabled in this place from people seeking to end the live export trade. That was in the days when everyone had to actually write their names on bits of paper for petitions, rather than just click on the screen on the internet. So the size of public concern and opposition to this trade has been longstanding and very, very large. We've had motion after motion put forward in this chamber over the years. We've had other legislation and amendments to legislation moved, including some I did myself previously, over 12 or 13 years ago. Each time we've had the corporate interests winning out over the community concern and the clear and extreme suffering of animals that was displayed time and time again. It is a really sad indictment of the unwillingness of vested interests to acknowledge extreme cruelty and their willingness to use what are basically flimsy and sometimes just straight-out false arguments to try to dismiss that. Most of the time it's just been straight-out denial. Despite the absolutely mountainous evidence of massive and extreme cruelty, involving whistleblowers and activists sometimes taking extreme personal risks themselves to expose that cruelty, we've actually had an industry, aided and abetted by some in government over the years, prepared to cover up and deny the extent, both the breadth and depth, of the cruelty involved. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The time for this debate has expired. Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 21

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018

Second Reading 21 12:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. This bill would reduce the income level at which people have to repay their Higher Education Contribution Scheme debts and would mean that people who have a HECS debt would have to pay it back more rapidly. It would have huge impacts on young people in particular across Australia today and would lead to us having far fewer people who are willing and able to undertake higher education. The fact that this has been proposed by the government speaks volumes about how out of touch they are with people on low incomes and young people—in particular, the intersection of young people on low incomes. Look around this chamber. There's hardly anybody here at the moment, but, if you look around this chamber when we're all here—at question time, for example—there is hardly a young person here. In fact, there is only one person in the whole parliament who is under 30, and that's Senator Jordon Steele-John, who, at 23, is really the only one of us who is in any position whatsoever to understand what the impacts of this legislation are going to be on the average student and the average young person saddled with HECS debt. In fact, less than 10 per cent of the whole parliament—MPs and senators alike—are under 40, and the government, which is proposing this legislation, has the grand total of 10 members who are under 40. This is my first point: it's pretty clear that, consistent with that, the government is totally out of touch with young people. It is, in fact, more than out of touch; it's committed to selling them short and selling out their future in the interests of its corporate mates today. This legislation is yet another attack on young people, students, the leaders of tomorrow and our future. Add this to the already $2 billion worth of cuts to higher education that are resulting in a really serious squeeze on the number of young people who can access higher education. Then, if they get there, they get to experience poorer quality teaching and learning because of bigger class sizes and more overworked teaching staff who are doing their very best but are absolutely stretched and on insecure contracts. There's absolutely no doubt that this measure, on its own, will mean that some people who would have gone on to tertiary education are not going to. One might reasonably ask: who are those people likely to be? It's not going to be those who are happily living at home with their parents, with the privilege of knowing that their parents can support them through the 'Bank of Mum and Dad' and knowing that they always have the safety net of a parent to fall back on if they ever find themselves struggling to make ends meet. No—those people aren't going to be the ones who will be impacted by this legislation. It probably won't affect those who've got a family history of going to university and are confident of finding well-paid work after their degree or the ones who are studying high-status degrees, like medicine and law. No, the people who are going to be hit hardest by this legislation are those who have had to struggle all their lives—who are doing their best to lift themselves out of poverty; who have attended an underfunded public school and succeeded in getting through Year 12 nonetheless; who don't quite know what they want to study; who often haven't got a family history and people who can guide them in what they want to study; and who don't know whether their study path is going to be a pathway to a secure career or a reliable income. The people who are going to be impacted are those young people who have a difficult relationship with their parents or where life at home is crowded and fractious and they've decided that, overall, life is going to be easier if they leave home. They're likely to be working in casual, underpaid work, living in absolutely crappy, poor-quality rental housing and struggling to pay the bills. The people who are going to be affected by this legislation are those who are newly arrived to Australia, maybe with no family here at all, having survived violence and persecution in their home countries, who are struggling to find their place here, experiencing racism in their everyday lives, finding it hard to find work and thinking that maybe studying is going to be their way forward. These are the people who will decide that they can't commit to study, because having to pay back their HECS debt when they are only just earning above the poverty line will be too much of a risk and it will add to the stresses on their already overstressed lives. Yet these are the people who we need to be doing everything we can to encourage to study, for their own sake and for our country's sake. For our future as a country, for us to thrive, we have to a well-educated community and workforce. We need to be removing inequality and to be ensuring that everyone has a chance to achieve their full potential, regardless of their background and regardless of their postcode. We have so many challenges ahead of us as a country that we need the best-educated society that we can provide. Other countries realise this. Germany offers free tertiary education, not just to their own residents but also to any overseas students, because Germany realises the benefits of having a highly educated society. New Zealand is now offering free degrees as first degrees to anyone. So for us to be putting more barriers in the way for young people to be able to access higher education is entirely the wrong direction for us to be heading. In fact, it's entirely the wrong thing to be doing if we want to have a thriving and prosperous country. So let's think about what the impacts of this legislation are going to be. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been struggling and has managed to get their way through uni, and they've now got a debt of maybe $30,000, $50,000 or more. Think of people in their early career years who aren't on a big income, who are paying half their income in rent for the crappy rental housing that I was just talking about. This legislation would tell them that, when they are earning just above the poverty line, they have to start paying this debt back. Think about women who are working part-time while bringing up their kids, where every dollar matters, or single parents suddenly having to pay off their debt on their limited income, where it's most likely going to be a choice of paying off the debt or putting food on the table or clothing their kids. Eight dollars a week is nothing to the people in here but, to people on a low income of $45,000, $8 is a meal for the family, a second-hand coat for your young son or petrol to drive to your daughter's netball match. Eight dollars might mean telling your child, 'Sorry; we can't afford for you to go on that excursion this week. You're going to have to stay home. I'll write a letter to the school to say that you're sick.' And $8, of course, pretty much wipes out what people are getting in their low-income tax cuts, doesn't it? This government talks about aspiration and talks about working families. This government has no idea! And, as for encouraging and supporting women to stay in the workforce, couple this with the increasing childcare costs, and it's yet another barrier for women going back to work. When it's going to cost you more to go back to work—particularly when insecure, casual, underpaid work is all that's on offer, despite the fact that you've got a tertiary degree—because of your childcare costs and because you then have to start paying back your HECS debt, that's when you decide that it's better to stay at home. This bill is going to save $231 million. It's a relative pittance that will have massive impacts, but this government don't care. It's clawing back just under twice of what the marriage equality plebiscite cost us last year. It's a choice that the government are making. The big choice, of course, is the choice to forego an income of $200 billion because they are dancing to the tune of the big end of town—$200 billion in tax cuts to big business and the wealthy. But, no, we have to claw back $231 million from people who in all likelihood are doing it pretty tough. That's the choice that the government are making. In short, they like rich people. 'To those who have, let us give them some more.' And they don't like poor people. They think being poor is your fault. 'Why don't you get a better job so you can afford to buy a house?' It's a bill that sees education as a commodity, a transaction. As I heard Senator Paterson say in his speech when we were last here: Providers need to think of the product and the service they are providing students for the significant taxpayer investment they receive. They view education as a commodity, and if you can't afford it then bad luck—that's your fault for being poor. Instead, they'll give tax breaks to their corporate mates, who certainly aren't poor. They'll give themselves tax breaks. Each of us senators earning $200,000 a year will be pocketing a tax break of $11,000 when all the tax cuts are in place. Each of us will be given a tax break that's enough for the yearly repayments on the HECS debts of almost three people who are struggling to survive on $45,000 a year. Not to worry—I'm sure at least some of the people in this place and the other place will donate a small fraction of that to a charity that can then dole out largesse in the form of food parcels for which poor people can feel truly grateful. The Greens have a very different view of education and of how we should be encouraging people to participate. We see investing in higher education, in all education from early childhood, as a priority, because it's an investment in people and in our shared future. Education helps people to flourish, to fulfil their potential, to understand the world and to work out their place in the world—where and how we belong and how to create a better society for all of us. At every step and stage of life, we should be encouraging people to be learning and should be supporting them in their educational journey. If you want to talk dollars and cents, then it is an economic investment too. A highly educated society where everybody has the opportunity to be educated ticks every box imaginable for what you need and want in a well-functioning economy. The economic benefits of free education far outweigh the supposed economic justification for giving tax breaks to global corporations and to people who are already well-off. We can afford to do so. It is a choice that we could be making as a parliament. There's a simple example of how it could be so. I've already mentioned Germany and New Zealand, but let's remember back to 1974 and the decade and a half that followed, when tertiary education was free in Australia. I was one of those lucky ones who didn't have to pay a cent. In fact, around half of this parliament are of an age where they would have been able to benefit from free tertiary education, along with being able to buy a house. This is intergenerational inequity at its most stark. Yet this government are punishing the young people of today to even dare to dream, to have the audacity to contemplate that maybe we could rebuild a more equal society that would have accessible education at its heart. The Greens would invest in education. Instead of obscene tax cuts, we would invest in education. We would invest in that more equal society, a forward-looking society, a society that values and supports its young people and allows them to thrive. We would make sure that legislation like this before the parliament today would not see the light of day. And we will keep on fighting. We will keep on campaigning against injustices like this bill until we get to that fairer, more equitable society. 12:35 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania If this Liberal government has one mantra, it could be, 'When you can, kick a young person,' because time and time again this government's policies are entirely about trying to make it harder for young people to make their way in life. Whether it's failing to make the sensible changes Labor proposes to negative gearing, tax cuts for multinationals and those in the highest income brackets or increasing the cost of university degrees, the changes that this government makes significantly disadvantage young people. It's as if they think that, by continually disadvantaging young Australians, they can absolve themselves of their failure to provide any sort of economic leadership for the country. They blame young people and attack young people and they do this to divert attention from their cuts to education, their cuts to health and their billions of dollars worth of tax cuts to multinationals and big businesses. If this government's credibility as competent economic managers weren't dead already, the decision that tax breaks for big banks were more important than funding schools was seriously the final nail in the coffin. The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 enacts a number of changes to Australia's income-contingent loan scheme, the Higher Education Loan Program, known as HELP, and makes technical changes to the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, the SFSS. It's an unfair piece of legislation that attacks students and undermines the fairness of our world-class student loan system. Australians already make the sixth-highest contribution to their university fees in the OECD. Labor believes the current repayment rate is about right. We don't want to make students repay their debts when they're struggling to start a career, saving for a house or trying to start a family. In a time of significant economic transition, we should be investing in our people, not making it harder to get a university qualification. We should be doing all that we can to increase participation in higher education, not making it harder. The MYEFO package of $2.2 billion of cuts is the government's fourth attempt since coming to office to cut funding to universities and make students pay more. We believe that any changes to the HELP scheme need to be considered and evidence based, but these changes to the HELP repayment threshold are simply driven by budget cuts and antistudent ideology. Labor believes we must have a fair and equitable loan scheme, but these changes to repayment thresholds simply do not pass the do-no-harm threshold. The changes to HELP were announced as part of the package of higher education measures in MYEFO on 18 December last year. This bill sets new repayment thresholds for HELP from 1 July 2018, starting with a new minimum repayment level of $45,000 with a one per cent repayment rate, with a further 17 thresholds and repayment rates up to a top threshold of $131,989, at which 10 per cent repayment would apply. The bill aligns with the indexation of HELP repayment thresholds to CPI instead of average weekly earnings and also introduces, from 1 January, 2019, a new combined loan limit on how much students can borrow under HELP to cover their tuition fees. This limit applies to all programs, including VET students loans, HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP and would be $104,440 for most students or $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses. This bill also makes a number of technical changes to the repayment threshold for the SFSS, including bringing repayment thresholds in line with the new HELP repayment thresholds and making changes to the order of repayment of student loan debts. The bill would also retain the current three-tier repayment thresholds for SFSS, with existing indexation for 2018-19. We must remember that this isn't the first time the government has attempted to make this change. The government has previously tried to make changes to the HELP repayment thresholds in its Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. Its proposal in last year's bill was to lower the HELP repayment rate to $42,000 a year. Labor was successful in making the case that this rate was too low. The government was unable to get enough support in the Senate, so it withdrew the bill in November. Now it's trying again but with the added punitive measures. The new proposal for a lifetime borrowing limit is a new policy proposal from the government. This would have significant implications for the operation of the higher education system. While a borrowing limit has been introduced in the VET student loans, there has yet to be a limit for all loan schemes in the higher education system. Traditionally Commonwealth supported places or HECS places did not have a borrowing limit for students. Students taking other courses which were not subsidised, like full-fee postgraduate coursework places, could take out a loan for the fees through the FEE-HELP scheme. Full fees were set by universities and higher education providers and have not been regulated, which has led to instances of students taking on significant amounts of debt. While there is some merit to sending a price signal through a lifetime borrowing limit, the proposal in this bill may have a range of unintended consequences. On 15 November last year the Senate referred the provisions of the bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March. Very few of the submissions indicated outright support for the bill, and Labor senators recommended the bill be opposed. To put it simply, this bill is bad policy and many submissions to the inquiry agreed with this view. The National Union of Students is not only opposed to the changes proposed in this bill but to the entire suite of measures the government has attempted to introduce during its time in government. The NUS submission to the inquiry states: Since the 2014 budget, the Federal Government has attempted multiple times to impose radical changes on Australia's Higher Education sector. It has done so with no coherent strategy for Australian higher education, other than to reduce public funding for what is an incredibly vital sector.    …   …   … NUS notes that the Federal Government has consistently failed to win the support of students, the Australian public, or the Senate for these changes, yet has proceeded with massive cuts and an end to the demand-driven system through executive order. The National Tertiary Education Union argues that this bill is flawed in four key ways, telling the committee: The NTEU opposes the proposed changes to HELP repayment schedule, especially the lowering of the income threshold to $45,000. The reasons for our opposition include that: the solution does not address the cause of escalating outstanding HELP debt; such a change is not consistent with the original rationale underlying HECS (now HELP) as an income contingent loans scheme; and the proposed changes will disproportionately impact on women. Similarly, the ACTU, in its submission to the inquiry, was highly critical of the bill: … we have seen this government persist with unprincipled, unfair and unsustainable policies that shift the cost burden for higher education onto the shoulders of students and their families. The ACTU believes that this bill places an unreasonable burden on students and will do nothing more than continue this government's agenda of reducing access to higher education for disadvantaged Australians. It also argued: At a time when home ownership, even for university graduates, is becoming an impossibility for many young people and when someone earning $45,000 a year will be spending, on average, nearly half their income in rent, increasing costs for young people to attend university and TAFE is unacceptable. It locks them out of education and ensures that those who do manage to enter the system have a harder time starting out. So the government believes that the escalating level of HELP debt is caused by former students not repaying their debt. Yet evidence suggests that this isn't the true cause. In fact, its own policies may well be to blame. Witnesses to the inquiry arguing against the government's view include the NTEU, who wrote in their submission: While the NTEU understands the government's concerns about the ever escalating level of outstanding HELP debt, … we do not believe changing the repayment schedule addresses the fundamental cause of this problem. The escalating level of HELP debt shown in Figure 2 is not a consequence of students failing to repay their debts. The rising level of HELP debt is being driven by: the increase in the number of Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) being offered by our universities and, significant increases in the contribution students are being asked to make toward the cost of these CSPs and therefore the amount each student is borrowing through HELP to finance those contributions. So we can see that the reasons that the government argue that this bill is needed are in fact false. But let's take a moment to consider who will be impacted most by the changes. The Regional Universities Network outlined how this change will most impact on lower income households, with their submission stating: The decrease of the first threshold for the repayment of student loans from around $52,000 to $45,000 is a significant change, which will negatively impact on low income households. And their submission said: A cap on student loans is a disincentive for life-long learning. Universities Australia was also critical about how the bill will impact on those who can least afford yet another hit to their budgets. Universities Australia said in its submission: UA is concerned about any proposal that would increase the financial burden on graduates earning modest salaries. … A $45,000 threshold would require graduates earning significantly less than the median starting salary for Bachelor degree graduates in full-time employment ($60,000 in 2017) to start making repayments. It said: The proposed, inflexible cap makes little sense in an era of accelerating labour market change, requiring more people to retrain and reskill. The proposal is difficult to reconcile with a commitment to lifelong learning. Trends towards requiring Masters level qualifications for initial professional registration also raise questions about the implications of the proposed limit. And it was argued by the ACTU that VET students in particular are most likely to be hit by the changes in this bill. They argued: It is clear that the students who will suffer most from these changes are those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Students from low-socio economic households will be particularly punished. VET students, who are more likely to be from disadvantaged families, are likely to be the hardest hit. Students from low socio-economic households are unlikely to be able to rely on support from their parents either during university or, crucially, in the early years of their career. I'm also deeply concerned that the government has not fully understood the impacts that the changes to HELP repayment thresholds will have on women. We know that, for this government, women are a second thought. This government has delivered policies so often that disproportionately impact on women. As National President of the National Union of Students Mr Mark Pace stated: We know from the National Tertiary Education Union's submission to this Senate inquiry that 60 per cent of all Australians with outstanding HELP debt are women and that two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the new proposed repayment thresholds will also be women—therefore, the bill should be rejected on that premise as well. Equity Practitioners in Higher Education highlighted the current gender inequality of the HELP system, a situation which will worsen with the proposed changes in the bill. They stated in their submission: The gender inequity of graduate salaries and the gender pay gap between men and women is reinforced by carer responsibilities, feminised industries and gender discrimination. Unsurprisingly, women as a group take longer to repay their student loans than men, largely due to gender pay gaps and time away from paid employment while fulfilling caring responsibilities. The interest on student loans continues to accrue, even though earnings may be well below the repayment threshold. Equity Practitioners in Higher Education highlighted the impact that changes in this bill would have on equity groups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and people living with disability. Their submission stated that the government needs to take into consideration: The particular impact of a HECS-HELP debt on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples whose participation in higher education continues to be below community representation and for which there are a range of additional challenges in gaining sustainable employment due to historical disadvantage and racism. The additional burdens of people with disabilities in gaining sustainable employment due to their disability or health condition and in terms of inclusive employment. An example of assistance with loan repayment is that in Canada, students with disability can apply for a Repayment Assistance Plan which allows repayment at a moderated rate, with interest paid by the federal and provincial governments. So it's pretty clear that the government has only ever had one plan for higher education: cut university and TAFE funding and make students pay more. The Liberals can't help themselves. They've consistently tried to make students pay more to pay for their $80 billion tax cuts. We've seen it in the schools, with $17 billion cut. We've seen it with vocational education and training, with nearly $3 billion cut and more than 140,000 apprentices and traineeships lost. That's 140,000 apprentices and traineeships lost since the Liberals came to office. Again, we've seen it with unis, with $2.2 billion cut. Labor deliver real reform to our higher education in this country. When we were last in government, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We opened the doors of universities to 190,000 more Australians, many of whom were the first in their family to go to university. The Liberals, through their latest round of cuts, are slamming those doors shut in people's faces. This bill is bad. It's bad for students from low-income households, it's bad for women, it's bad for Indigenous and culturally diverse students, and it's bad for students with disability. The government has failed to make the case as to why this bill is needed and has failed to adequately consider the effects that these changes will have on students and graduates who are struggling to own a home and get ahead in life. I encourage all senators to vote against this legislation. 12:52 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland This is still not my first speech. I rise to support the government's Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. This bill amends the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, and the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, SFSS, to revise the repayment threshold for student loans. It will also change indexation arrangements for repayment thresholds, amend the order of payment of some student loan debts and introduce a combined lifetime loan limit for HELP. The argument in favour of these changes is conclusive. HELP debt has grown rapidly in recent years, reaching the astronomical figure of $55.4 billion, nearly $20 billion of which is never expected to be repaid. This was driven in part by students doing vocational education and training, which had rapidly expanded under the previous Labor government, loaded with dodgy courses which were promoted by even dodgier private operators. Some professional students have been identified who have skipped from one useless course to the next, running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt without ever getting qualifications that will get them sufficient income to repay their debts to the taxpayer. During the life of the HELP scheme, the minimum repayment rates have generally remained around average weekly ordinary time earnings. However, the repayment thresholds are subject to indexation each year by the increase in average weekly earnings. As a consequence, the threshold has tended to increase over time in real terms, until lower thresholds have been legislated. The adjustment proposed by the government is fully in line with past practice. At a more general level, many people fail to appreciate that widespread tertiary education was one of the great achievements of the Menzies government. Menzies knew that improving the education standard of Australian people would improve their ability to get better-paying jobs and would drive prosperity and material advancement. Many of the great universities of Australia, such as ANU, were built as a consequence of the Menzies government policy. However, an issue that should be mentioned is that even today not everyone goes to university. It follows that if those who go to university do not pay the cost of their own courses, those who do not get the benefit of a university degree end up subsidising those who do. More than anything else, this is a powerful argument for lowering the income repayment threshold for HELP and SFSS student loans. To those who oppose the bill or actually want to increase the repayment threshold, I ask: why should low-income working families who are unable to go to university be required to pay additional tax so that middle-class students can get a free ride to higher incomes and dazzling careers? Higher repayment thresholds for student loans do not help low-income earners: they punish them. Rich man's degree, poor man's fee, has never been more true. 12:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to join with other opposition senators to oppose this bill. I do so on the basis of equity reasons and also what might be called economic reasons and what's best for the nation's economic future. I don't think that there would be anyone in this place who would deny that Australia's economic future is completely dependent upon us investing in the skills and knowledge of Australians. Everywhere we look around the world, we are seeing technological advances. We are seeing other countries investing increasingly in their higher education sectors, their vocational training sectors and their schools to ensure that their people of all ages are as well prepared as possible for the kinds of jobs of the future that are going to rely increasingly on high levels of knowledge and skills. I don't think there would be anyone in this place who would disagree with that. So it defies belief that, yet again, we're in here debating another bill from this government which tries to take the country in exactly the opposite direction. Even in the short time that I've been here, we have debated a number of bills that have seen the government take the axe to funding for schools, for vocational education and training, in particular TAFE, and also for universities. So at the very time when we need to be investing more in the skills and knowledge of Australians, to make sure that they are prepared for the kind of jobs that are growing in the future, this government is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. That's what this bill does. In particular, this bill will reduce the income threshold at which people will start paying back the loans that they've taken out to pay for their higher education. I was fortunate to graduate from university in the early days of what was then the HECS system, when some form of fees were re-introduced for university studies in Australia. As a result, from memory, the debt that I took out was in the order of $8,000 to $10,000. That did take me a number of years to repay. I wasn't from a family that had millions of dollars lying around spare and was able to pay for my fees up-front. Like most Australians undertaking higher education studies, I paid it back once I graduated from university and started earning a reasonable income. The problem with what the government are trying to do is that they are not only going to make students pay more for their degrees than they have had to in the past but they're also going to make students pay that back at a much earlier stage, when they hit $45,000 a year. That is not only below the median income for Australians overall; it is below the median income for graduates from university. So they're actually hitting up people below the median and forcing them to repay their fees at an earlier stage. There's nothing in this that's going to affect wealthy students from wealthy families whose families are going to be able to pay the fees up-front. This will only impact students from working and middle-class backgrounds, who have no choice but to take out a loan in order to go through university. It's another example of this government training its guns on people from working and middle-class backgrounds and doing nothing to disadvantage students from wealthier backgrounds. As I say, these changes from this government come on top of a range of other cuts that they've imposed on the education sector. These changes come on top of the $17 billion that they've cut from school funding, particularly from state schools—which, again, educate most kids from working- and middle-class backgrounds—and they also comes on top of the cuts that we keep seeing from this government to TAFE and vocational education and training for the future. I don't really know what kind of future the government think they are preparing the Australian people for if they are not prepared to put serious funding into our education system to make sure that young and older Australians have the opportunity to compete for the kinds of jobs that are going to be opened up in the future. But, arguably. the worst thing about this bill—in addition to them jacking up fees for university students and cutting funding to universities, cutting funding to TAFE, cutting funding to schools and making students repay their university loans at a much earlier stage—is that the reason the government are doing this is that they've desperately got to cobble together a pot of funding to pay for the tax cuts that they want to give to big business. I was listening to Senator Anning, who spoke before me, and there have been other government speakers on this bill. They always like to trot out the class warfare in these debates about higher education funding, and they always like to talk about why people from working-class backgrounds or poor backgrounds who don't have the opportunity to have a university education should have to pay for those elites who get to go to university. For starters, the entire community benefits from having a highly educated population. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, the nation's economic future is dependent on having a highly educated population. But even leaving that aside, do you ever hear anyone from the government get up and talk about how unfair it is to make poor people and working-class people pay more in taxation so that the government can give the banks or big business a tax cut? The government and the crossbench supporters that they have are completely missing in action whenever it comes to standing up for working-class and poor people who are having to pay more in taxes to pay for a big-business tax cut—people who are losing funding to their hospitals, schools, TAFEs and pensions in order to pay for a big-business tax cut—but, all of a sudden, they become the friend of working-class and poor people when it comes to higher education. Everyone can see through this. It is just nonsense. This government and their crossbench supporters have no interest in helping working-class or poor people in Australia. If they actually did, they would get rid of this bill, which is going to require people to repay their loans at an earlier stage—not the wealthy students who've got parents who can pay their fees for them, but the working- and middle-class students who actually have to take out a loan to get a university education. I don't think it's very well known that Australians already pay the sixth-highest contribution to their own cost of university education of any country in the OECD, in any country in the developed world. We are the sixth-highest already. So it's not as if we aren't asking students to make a contribution to their education—I'm completely fine with doing that—but it's about the level at which people should repay these loans, before we actually start making a disincentive for people from poorer backgrounds to undertake university studies in the first place. If this bill goes through it's going to have a particularly big impact on younger people—who, to my knowledge at least, still make up the highest proportion of university students in the country. At the very time young graduates are trying to put together the money to buy their first home and maybe to have a family, they're now going to be saddled with higher debts that they have to repay at a much earlier stage than is currently the case. So it's going to impact on young people. Senator Bilyk was talking about the particular impact that this bill is going to have on women. Pleasingly, in Australia over recent decades, we've been able to increase the proportion of women who go to university. It's not like when my mum was growing up and women had very little chance to go to university. It's great that there are so many more women going to university these days. But all of the statistics show that it's mainly women who take longer to repay their debts and, therefore, their university debts, and therefore rack up greater interest, because, unfortunately, occupations dominated by women still tend to pay less, and many women take time out of work to have children. So it will have a particularly big impact on women as well—not to mention the particular impact that this bill will have on regional students. I just want to say a little bit about this. I've pointed out, on a number of occasions across different pieces of legislation, how hypocritical it is for Queensland LNP senators, particularly those who line up with the National Party, to come down to Canberra and pretend that they're the friends of regional Queenslanders and then consistently vote for legislation dreamed up by their Liberal Party colleagues which will actually hurt people in regional areas. We know—it is beyond dispute—that people in regional areas, particularly in regional Queensland, do tend to have lower levels of income than those in the big cities; they graduate from degrees and get less pay than their colleagues in the big cities. What LNP senators, particularly those lined up with the National Party, are going to do by voting for this bill is make their own constituents in regional Queensland pay more for their courses and pay it back earlier, before they've actually even started earning the median wage for university graduates. So that's how much of a friend they are for regional Queenslanders; they're prepared to, yet again, come down to Canberra, stab them in the back and vote for legislation that's going to help out their Liberal Party mates and sell out their National Party supporters back home. In conclusion, as I've already said, no-one could seriously debate that this country's economic future is completely dependent upon having the most highly educated community that we possibly can. What we need is a government that actually is prepared to invest in our schools, invest in our TAFEs and invest in our universities. We need to have a government that's prepared to take people who've worked in blue-collar jobs all of their life and give them training opportunities to make sure that they're prepared for the kinds of jobs that are going to exist and grow in the future. This bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It's cutting funding to universities. It's cutting funding for places for universities. It's making students pay more for their education and it's making them pay it back much earlier. This is the wrong direction for our country to be going in, and that's why I'll be joining opposition senators in voting against it. 13:06 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I've said before that I didn't know what a high-school drop-out was until I went to the United States to live and discovered that I was one. Despite the lack of education—leaving school at 15 to join my local newspaper—I feel strongly about young Australians getting the best, most thorough educations they possibly can. I applaud some new programs in Queensland and the Northern Territory to get more Indigenous students through high school and then, importantly, through university, for better jobs. I see that across the ditch Prime Minister Ardern has a whiff of Gough Whitlam's dream of free universities. It won't happen here again, but at least the government should be doing its damnedest to make life easier for university students to have enough money to eat, to pay the rent and to start their careers without worrying about the pressures of HECS debt repayments. Australians want young people to have every opportunity to continue their education, regardless of their socioeconomic standing, to get into great jobs both here and overseas and to contribute positively to the economy and to our society. They are, as other speakers have said, our future. The reform package now boils down to two key measures—one I can live with, and one I can't. The introduction of a replenishable cap on HELP loans makes good, practical sense. I know it doesn't always pass the pub test to give students access to an endless stream of money to collect more and more degrees—what I call professional students. But people who pay down their debt will be able to borrow again for another degree. It's that simple, and it's that good. On the other hand, lowering the HELP repayment threshold to $45,000 is plainly unfair and, I believe, unjust. The government—remember—started the bidding at $42,000. They may believe that $45,000 is a fair compromise. Well, I don't. Pauline Hanson's version of chopping the threshold to under $30,000 is simply cruel, blinkered—even obscene—and not worth discussing. Many young uni graduates who are for the first time earning a real adult salary are at the same time discovering our very high cost of living. They're moving out of the family home. They're paying bills. They're paying rent. They're paying for public transport, maybe trying to buy a car. On top of that, they need to find money for a new suit, new shoes, a new work uniform, and they still need to be able to eat. I'm not talking about overpriced smashed avocado on sourdough drizzled with balsamic vinegar; I'm talking about baked beans, bangers and mash, and scrambled eggs. I'm also concerned that the government has not sufficiently factored in the impact this change will have on women, as other speakers have also mentioned. The President of the National Union of Students, Mark Pace, told a Senate inquiry that 60 per cent of all Australians with outstanding uni debts are women, and two-thirds of the Australians who will be dragged into the debt pool with the new proposed repayment threshold will also be women. Women, returning to work part time after having kids, would also be hit at a time when every single dollar counts. Now, I believe that people need a bit of breathing room, and that's what I'm hoping to give them with my amendment. My amendment is to lower the repayment threshold, but only very slightly, to bring it down from around $52,000 to $50,000. This compromise acknowledges that national debt does need to be paid down and that HELP debt is part of that. When HECS was first introduced it was intended that students would begin to repay their loans when they started to get a direct, private benefit from their education. The community rightly expects that those who are earning decent salaries pay the government back—pay the taxpayer back. Starting to pay back your HELP loan at one per cent when you've reached a $50,000 salary, to me, seems fair. I remember people like the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, told me two years ago this month, when I was sworn in: 'Remember, Derryn, compromise is what Canberra is about. Seventy per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing.' Government ministers are always saying this. I hope they'll support my amendment on this. If my amendment does not get up, if the government turns its back on me, I'll join with the Greens, the ALP and some of my crossbench colleagues in attempting to excise the change to repayment thresholds from this bill to get rid of it altogether. I'll finish by saying, 'That's not bad for a high school dropout.' 13:11 Senator MARTIN 275266 Tasmania I have informed my colleagues in the coalition government that I remain opposed to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. Some would say I'd be crossing the floor against my party; however, I see it as staying true to my word. I would like to thank my National Party colleagues for understanding that I take my stance. From day one, they have known my view on this bill and they have supported—while, admittedly, at times, with some understandable trepidation—my independence on this topic that is close to my heart. That is what makes the Nationals a great party. They respect a vast array of attitudes and opinions held by an equally diverse and switched-on regional Australia. I would also like to thank the hundreds of people, including students and academics, who have contacted my office to support my strong stance on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. In my first speech I said: … our most fundamental challenge as Tasmanians is education. I went on to say: According to Saul Eslake, each additional year of school attained, on average, leads to between six and 19 per cent economic growth over the long run. People with a degree earn an average of 50 per cent more over their lives than those whose education ends at year 12. In turn, people whose education finishes at year 12 earn 40 per cent more than those who finish at or before year 10. The pattern is clear enough. But it's not just financial. In addition to being more prosperous, people who are better educated tend to be less prone to gambling, drug abuse, alcoholism, obesity, crime and chronic illness. In short, a better education means a better life. Furthermore, my opposition to the bill was also outlined in a statement released in April, where I outlined my concern that any reduction in the HECS-HELP repayment threshold would, in fact, be a disincentive to students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, from undertaking study to improving their prospects in life. Students are one of Australia's most precious resources, and we should invest in them. My first speech had all the facts and figures in there as to why I strongly support maximising the opportunity for students, especially for those from my home state of Tasmania, but it is a decision I made with my head and my heart. I have seen, through my charity work with Enormity Inc., Books for Babies and Toast for Kids, that education sets a pathway to more opportunities. It is with my heart-and-head approach that I also recall, from my first speech, mentions of the young Tasmanians inspired to grab their opportunities and run with them to achieve bigger dreams. That is what an education can do. It can open doors and lead to opportunities we could only ever have dreamt of. It is in line with the same aspirational spirit that has been mentioned in other contexts within the Senate over the past few weeks. So apologies to those who thought that they may have gotten some political mileage out of me changing my tune and supporting the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, even though I recognise the government's intent to make a sustainable system. However, I'm not changing my position on this bill, which I am opposing for all Tasmanians and all Australians with my heart and my head. I am proud to be in a party that leads the way in supporting rural and regional students to get an education. The Nationals have systematically removed barriers for rural and regional students. The Nationals have been an instrumental part of a government that commissioned the independent Halsey review into rural, regional and remote education. We have delivered record funding, through Gonski 2, that will prioritise regional, rural and remote education. We have removed farms from the asset test for country kids, changed youth allowance to better support rural students to make sure the gap year is only 12 months and improved access to educational opportunities for regional students, especially those from low-income families. Thank you. 13:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. I particularly thank those who have indicated their support for the Turnbull government's reforms to ensure that our world-leading income-contingent loan program for students, which is one of the world's most generous, continues to be viable and sustainable into the future. We are marking the 30th anniversary of the introduction of HECS by the Hawke-Keating government. Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, I'm sure you, I and others would have been in that first generation that saw HECS-HELP and its introduction. I want to acknowledge the members of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee who have undertaken work on this legislation. Their work is demonstration that what we've seen since the advent of HECS and its subsequent HELP scheme is nothing but continued growth in participation in higher education, particularly participation across different equity cohorts. I particularly thank the Chair, Senator Gichuhi, and Senator Paterson, whose report the Turnbull government has adopted, including their proposed recommendations and amendments for a renewable limit on outstanding HELP loans. The renewable loans balance, as proposed, will commence from 1 January 2020, but the existing loan caps will be increased from 1 January 2019. I also want to thank, in particular, those experts, such as the original architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, who have made contributions to the Senate inquiry and to deliberations on this matter. These proposed changes are the culmination of a process that commenced with a policy discussion paper back at the time of the 2016-17 budget. A generous student loans program provides access to tertiary education for all Australians, irrespective of their backgrounds, their financial means or the circumstances of their families. No real rate of interest is charged on outstanding loans, and as former students would know—and as I trust current students appreciate—it is certainly one of the best loans anybody will ever get. We are determined to preserve it and to ensure that it is sustainable well into the future. Australians will continue to be able to pursue further study, to change careers and to specialise in their current profession, and to do so by accessing very generous loans. The HELP loan limits will continue to be indexed annually so they will increase in line with the cost of living. The Australian tax office's financial hardship provisions ensure that Australians should not have to make compulsory repayment if it will leave them or their families in financial difficulties. In discussions with some senators—I particularly acknowledge Senator Storer here—we've worked to increase awareness of these provisions to ensure there are clear links to them on the StudyAssist website. Some 90 per cent of applications for full or partial deferral of repayments are approved by the tax office. These measures are fair and progressive and ensure that Australia's world-leading income-contingent loan scheme will continue to be available to future generations of students. Importantly for all Australian taxpayers, outstanding loans under the HECS-HELP program stand at over $50 billion at present. If we don't act over the next few years, future governments may well be forced to act, and in a way that doesn't preserve, as we have, the integrity, sustainable, and viability of the loan scheme. Indeed estimates are that, without the types of changes that we're proposing, around one-quarter of that $50 billion of outstanding loans will not be repaid. The Labor Party would have you believe they're all for fairness, sustainability and future prosperity, but they tend to like to kick the can down the road and avoid making the difficult decisions, such as this one, that will improve the sustainability and integrity of this loan scheme well into the future. Today's Labor Party is not the party of Hawke and Keating, who took the decision to first introduce HECS. Indeed, whilst the 30th anniversary of HECS is upon us, another 30-year anniversary looms next year: the last time a Labor government delivered a surplus. The coalition is determined that we will be responsible with Australia's finances, but also with the future of access for Australian students, by ensuring that the tertiary loans scheme, the HECS-HELP scheme, is viable, sustainable and affordable into the future so that it continues to provide that access for every student to be able to go to university without fear of up-front fees getting in the way of their capacity to do so. I acknowledge Senator Martin's comments before, particularly the remarks that highlighted some of the other steps we've taken in terms of improving access to youth allowance for rural, regional and remote Australians to ensure that some of those who face the highest cost-of-living pressures, in having to move to a city to be able to access higher education, are given additional support to do so. I thank senators again for their contributions. I commend the bill to the Senate. I indicate that there are some government amendments that will be circulated, particularly relating to the fact that this bill is now being considered subsequent to its initial intended start date, and I hope that the bill enjoys the support of senators. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [13:27]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 36 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S 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 Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 32 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 4 PAIRS Cormann, M Watt, M Hanson, P Brown, CL Hume, J Lines, S Sinodinos, A Kitching,

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 32 13:30 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 together. Leave granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: [repayment thresholds—commencement] (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit paragraph 154‑10(a), substitute: (a) for the 2019‑20 income year—$45,880; or [HELP repayment thresholds] (3) Schedule 1, item 2, pages 3 to 5 (table), omit the table, substitute: (6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 7), omit "2019‑20", substitute "2020‑21". [indexation of HELP repayment thresholds] (7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "2018‑19", substitute "2019‑20". [indexation of HELP repayment thresholds] (8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (formula), omit the formula, substitute: [indexation of HELP repayment thresholds] (9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 4), omit "2018‑19", substitute "2019‑20". [repayment thresholds—application of amendments] (10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 6), omit "2019‑20", substitute "2020‑21". [repayment thresholds—application of amendments] (11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 9), omit "2018‑19", substitute "2019‑20". [indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional] (12) Schedule 1, item 18, page 11 (line 11), omit "2018‑19", substitute "2019‑20". [indexation of HELP repayment thresholds—transitional] Given that the bill did not pass before the 1 July 2018 intended start date and the thresholds are based on tax and financial years, it's proposed now that the new threshold will come into effect on 1 July 2019. The thresholds will apply, having been indexed as was initially proposed. Therefore the new first repayment threshold will be $45,881 at the new one per cent repayment rate, reflecting CPI indexation of the previous $45,000 threshold in line with its commencement, now proposed for 1 July 2019. That will rise in progressive instalments to $134,373 for the 10 per cent repayment threshold. 13:31 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Labor will be opposing these amendments for the same reason that we opposed the bill. The original time frame of introducing these changes was unacceptable, and these are too. 13:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Australian Greens oppose these amendments from the government. They go directly to the heart of the entire problem with this piece of legislation. The government is trying to create a false sense of crisis in relation to higher education at a time when we should be doing more to support young Australians being able to get an education and being able to afford to conduct that education. There's a new report out today that says that one in seven university students is being forced to go without food because they are living below the poverty line. That is the real crisis in our higher education sector: university students, young Australians right across this country, cannot even afford to live while they are studying. That is the problem that this government should be fixing, but instead we have the government trying to slash and burn the education budget, forcing young people, young Australians, to carry the burden. This, of course, is on the back of very generous tax cuts that have gone through this place, hailed by the government as necessary. Of course, that comes at the cost of public services. When they've given billions of dollars in tax cuts to rich Australians, they still want to give billions of dollars more to big corporations and the big banks. And yet university students are being told that they need to tighten their belts. When you've got studies like that conducted by Universities Australia, which shows that a huge number of young people in this country are living well below the poverty line, struggling as university students, this is not the type of legislation that the Senate should be passing. I just want to make note of Senator Martin, who today crossed the floor opposing this bill. When you have individuals in this place understanding and recognising the real struggle of young Australians and people studying in this country, that's a good thing. However, seeing the rest of the government on the government benches turning a blind eye to the real struggles facing young people is extremely disappointing. Of course, we know that one of the biggest problems here is stagnating jobs growth and wages growth. When no-one's wages are growing except the wages of those who are very rich in this country—and they are about to get even more in their pockets because of massive tax cuts passed by the Senate last session—and young people can't afford their rent, their bills or to put food on the table, then we have a serious problem. When are the government going to start addressing these issues rather than trying to use young people and education funding as a scapegoat for their big tax handouts to corporate Australia, big banks and themselves? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 111206 The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) and (6) to (12) on sheet EK131 be agreed to. Question agreed to. 13:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move amendments (4) and (5) on sheet EK131 together: [HELP repayment thresholds] (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 1 to the end of the table), subsection 1061ZZFD(4) to be opposed. [SFSS repayment thresholds] (5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 17 to the end of the table), subsection 12ZLC(4) to be opposed. Just very quickly, these are again technical amendments that relate to the revised start date that the Senate has largely just adopted. The legislation was originally drafted containing some transitional provisions for one year in relation to how the HECS-HELP scheme interacted with other repayment arrangements and student support schemes, and the application of the new 1 July 2019 start date means that those clauses are no longer required. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that subsection 1061ZZFD(4) in item 3 and subsection 12ZLC(4) in item 6 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Question negatived. 13:37 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia If it will assist the chamber, I want to seek some guidance, perhaps from the minister, if I may, before I move my amendment. It may be preferable to deal with some other amendments in the hope of not having divisions now. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There hasn't been any questioning of the minister to date, so I think it would be appropriate to go ahead. Senator BERNARDI G0D My question is whether it would facilitate the chamber for me to move my amendment now or deal with other amendments. 13:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Bernardi for his courtesy. I think we're in the chamber's hands and we seem to be moving through amendments relatively swiftly, so perhaps we'll be able to maintain that. 13:38 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Thank you, Minister. I'm happy to move it. I'm mindful, though, that there are a couple of people on the crossbench who are pretty intent on going to a swearing in in the other chamber, if it should be available. Nonetheless, that being said, Mr Chairman— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Move swiftly, then, Senator Bernardi. Senator BERNARDI G0D by leave—I move Australian Conservatives amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 41 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4—FEE ‑HELP debts Part 1—Amendments Higher Education Support Act 2003 1 Subsection 137 ‑10(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The amount of the *FEE‑HELP debt is: (a) if the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance for a unit of study provided by a Table B provider—the amount of the loan; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the loan relates to *FEE-HELP assistance that forms part of an *undergraduate course of study—an amount equal to 125% of the loan; or (c) if neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies—the amount of the loan. Part 2—Application of amendments 2 Application—FEE ‑HELP debts The amendments of section 137‑10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a loan made on or after 1 January 2019. These amendments effectively just remove the inconsistency and the unfair levy that is placed upon students at four particular universities. 13:39 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Labor does not support these amendments. The extension of loans in the system may have some value, but simply adding the private providers to the list is not the right way to go about it. We understand Senator Bernardi's intention here, but the issue of loan fees is another issue that Labor are concerned about and we'll consider it in our national inquiry into post-secondary education if we win the next election. 13:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I indicate that the Australian Greens do not support Senator Bernardi's amendment. I understand the intent of the amendment but I don't believe it's the appropriate way to make the system fairer—the idea of forcing more and more debt onto young people, as opposed to finding ways to alleviate it. 13:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I indicate that the government is pleased to support Senator Bernardi's amendment. The government has, in various previous higher education reform proposals, sought to reduce the extent to which the loan fee applies. Contrary to what Senator Hanson-Young implied just then, the amendment moved by Senator Bernardi will in fact reduce the amount of student debt that students at these institutions take on. This is confined specifically to, essentially, the table B universities and will treat their students on par with those public table A universities. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 111206 The question is that items (1) and (2) on sheet 8417 be agreed to. Question agreed to. 13:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move Greens amendment (1) and (2) on sheet 8411: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 11 (line 11), to be opposed. These amendments effectively oppose schedule 1 of the bill. There is a second set of amendments—that's (2). The second set is reliant on amendment (1). If we can deal with amendment (2) first, I'd appreciate that. These amendments effectively scrap the changes to the repayment threshold as outlined by the government. It is the government's intention to make life harder and harder for university students, particularly once they graduate. The Universities Australia 2017 Survey of University Student Finances conducted by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, released today, suggests that one in seven university students are being forced to go without food because of living below the poverty line and that one in three students have expenses that outweigh their income. Students are already living day-to-day trying to struggle through their university education. This government is focusing entirely on what students are costing the budget rather than doing anything about the daily budgets and struggles of students to cover the basics like food, rent and textbooks—not to mention public transport costs to get from home to work, if they work part time, and then, of course, to university. The reason schedule 1, which amendment (2) moves to scrap, should not proceed is because it is fundamentally unfair. The Greens amendment strips out the repayment table from the bill itself which changes the thresholds and rates of indexation at which students repay their debt. The amendment opposes the changes in the bill to reduce the minimum repayment threshold from $51,957 to $45,880 and to adjust all the thresholds accordingly. Of course, we oppose the increase to the maximum repayment rate of 10 per cent and we oppose making students pay back their debt sooner, once their income hits that threshold. We are extremely concerned that, at a time when we have high unemployment—particularly youth unemployment—and low wages growth, this is a double whammy for young people right across the country. We're opposed to the changes as outlined by the government to the thresholds and repayment rates because we do not believe that the problem facing Australia today is being solved by forcing young people to have to carry this burden themselves, making them pay back their education debt sooner and at a higher rate, particularly when we know that students are struggling every day to cover living expenses when they are studying and when they are very soon to graduate. Requiring former students to begin repaying their debt when their income ticks a shade over the minimum wage is effectively a $400-a-year tax increase on some of the lowest income Australians. Only last session there was a vote in this place to give high-income earners a massive tax cut. In exchange for that, because the government doesn't have as much money in its coffers as a result of those income tax cuts, we are now seeing university students having to carry the burden. While politicians might be getting $11,000 in their back pocket in a tax cut, we're forcing young Australians to pay an extra $400 effectively in a tax increase. It is simply unfair. Young people are living on budgets without any fat to trim. They are living pay cheque to pay cheque, week to week, from hand to mouth. The Liberal government—Minister Birmingham and his colleagues—doesn't seem to care about the real impact that these changes are going to have on some of the country's lowest paid workers. The Liberal Party are determined to slash the weekly budgets of former students so that they can crow to the world that the federal budget is looking good. Of course, the government continues to not just hand out billions of dollars in tax cuts to wealthy Australians but also flog the dead horse of wanting to give tax cuts to the big banks and corporate Australia. All the while, workers in this country are struggling on stagnant wage growth—and for what? Why is the government doing this? What problem are they actually solving? The architect of the HECS system, Bruce Chapman, said that the value of the stock of outstanding debt is in fact not an issue. This is how the system was designed. We don't have to worry about this. In his words, 'There is no crisis in this system.' This is one of those clever tactics of the Liberal government. Create a crisis, invent a solution and think that everybody is going to pat you on the back and say, 'Job well done.' If this government wasn't spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and giving the big banks a handout then perhaps we'd have the money to fund education properly in this country. Every other developed, smart, democratic country in the world is looking at their education system at a time when the nature of work is changing so quickly and when unemployment is on the rise. Other countries' governments—whether it is the UK, France, New Zealand or even, dare I say, the United States—are looking and saying, 'How can we be supporting education better?' Retraining and ensuring that young people in particular can get the education they need for the new look of the workforce are what the government should be investing in, not making it harder and harder for the next generation of workers. There is no crisis in the education system except for the fact that young people are struggling to pay their day-to-day costs while they're getting an education. There is, of course, a crisis when it comes to wages. Wage growth remains sluggish and stubborn, and the cost of living is rising every day. The wages of everyday Australians are getting worse and worse in comparison. We will never solve a crisis in wages by taking more money from low-income Australians, and that is what this bill does. Make no mistake: this is an attack not just on young people but on low-income Australians right across the country. The government says that, 'This increase means graduates will only lose $8 a week.' I've heard the minister say this himself, and it just shows how out of touch this government has become. It may not sound like much to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Education and Training, but for low-income Australians who are struggling week-to-week to pay the bills, to put food on the table and to pay for their public transport costs, $8 a week is a hell of a lot. In Adelaide, if you're to go to university, it's $5.50 to catch public transport from the outer suburbs into town. A wages cut of $8 a week will make a big impact on those young people being able to get to university or, indeed, to their new job if and when they graduate. It's more money going from the grocery budget to the federal budget. It's more money that isn't going to be spent by these people on bills and household costs. It's not 'just $8 a week' to someone who is struggling to make ends meet, and there are a hell of a lot of these struggling Australians right across the country. In my home state of South Australia, where youth unemployment is through the roof, these young people cannot cop another whack. It's a $400 a year increase in taxes, effectively, and $8 a week less in their pocket. This is a government who thinks that this is all okay because they themselves are doing all right, their mates in big business are doing all right and the banks are doing all right. Here in this place, the Senate voted in the last session to give politicians an $11,000 tax cut, so we're doing all right. But young Australians are not. We should be investing in students who invest in themselves. Instead, we're shaking them down for their loose change. How about we shake down the big banks for some of their loose change? How about we shake down some of corporate Australia for their loose change? How about we force them to actually pay the taxes they owe the taxpayer? How about we do that rather than forcing young Australians in this country to cover the bills of this government's outlandish tax cuts and handouts to the rich in this country? That's what the amendment does, and I look forward to receiving support for it from various parties in the Senate. 13:52 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Labor supports these amendments, as they effectively keep in place the majority of the current system. We don't believe that students should have to start paying back debt when they earn as little as $45,000 per year. I acknowledge the hard work of stakeholders like the National Union of Students, the ACTU and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, who came to the hearings we had on the bill back in March. I was very impressed with the evidence of the NUS president, Mark Pace, who talked about how so many students currently skip meals and live below the Henderson poverty line. This is not a new story, as highlighted by the reports today. It is a shame that for quite some time now these issues haven't been given the prominence that they should have, nor greater interest across the crossbench in addressing the detail of some of the matters as they were presented to the committee. 13:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Briefly, the government does not support the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. The amendments, indeed, would essentially gut the bill of its intent. The bill's seeks, as I made very clear, to ensure: that we have fairer, steadier increments in the way in which repayments are made; that as much of the $50 billion of outstanding debt is recovered as fairly as possible; and that the fair and viable student loans program is sustained into the future. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 111206 The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [13:58]
(Temporary Chair—Senator Leyonhjelm)

 33 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Williams, JR 30 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR (teller) McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 6 PAIRS Cormann, M Wong, P Griff, S Sterle, G Hanson, P Urquhart, AE Hume, J Lines, S Patrick, RL Marshall, GM Sinodinos, A Kitching,

Question agreed to.
Progress reported.

 14:02 The PRESIDENT I0Q It being later than 2 pm, we will now move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 39 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 39 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Earlier this year, the minister said, 'We are completely and utterly committed to our business tax cuts'. However, this morning, the finance minister refused to say whether the government would abandon its Enterprise Tax Plan if it fails to legislate it in the next fortnight. Can the minister confirm the government will take the full Enterprise Tax Plan to the next election as he committed? 14:02 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I can confirm for Senator Wong and for the chamber is that the government, indeed, is fully committed to deliver a lower, globally more competitive business tax rate in order to protect jobs and to protect future wages growth, because, of course, those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the future success of working families around Australia depends on the future viability, competitiveness and profitability of businesses right around Australia. If we make it harder for businesses in Australia to be successful, we make it harder for working families around Australia to be successful. That is something that Labor used to understand. Let's see what happens this fortnight. The government certainly is focused on securing the passage of this very important economic reform and, if the Labor Party cared about working families, they would back it. 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again ask this minister the same question. The minister has previously committed to taking the business tax cuts—the Enterprise Tax Plan—to the next election. I again ask this minister: can the minister confirm the government will take the full Enterprise Tax Plan to the next election, as he has committed? Yes or no? 14:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We are absolutely committed to taking business tax cuts to the next election, hopefully having been legislated by the Senate. The Labor Party has an opportunity to do the right thing by working families around Australia by supporting a policy that the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, supported right up until the time that we put it into our budget. The shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, as late as September 2015, made the point that a higher company tax rate hurts workers the most. It falls hardest on workers. That's what he used to say. Senator Abetz interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Senator Wong's said similar things, you're quite right. The Labor Party knows what the right thing to do is here for working families around Australia. I tell you what we're going to do. We're going to give you the opportunity to vote for better opportunities for working families around Australia to get ahead, by making sure that the businesses that employ them and pay their wages have the best possible opportunity to be viable, to be competitive and to be profitable into the future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a final supplementary question. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia When this minister was asked in Senate estimates whether the government remains committed to taking the Enterprise Tax Plan to the next election, the minister said, 'I've already said yes. I've answered that twice now.' Will the minister keep his word to the Australian people to take the Enterprise Tax Plan to the next election or not? 14:05 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Wong is quite right. My views on this are well and truly on the public record. Whatever your view on the substance of this argument, I don't think that there is anyone in this chamber that doubts my commitment to securing the passage of a lower, globally more competitive business tax rate. I think everyone in this chamber knows, or at least should know, that I passionately believe that to protect— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA I think that everyone in this chamber knows very well that I'm committed to securing the best possible opportunity for working families around Australia to get ahead by making sure that the businesses that employ them have the best possible opportunity to be viable, competitive and profitable into the future. Labor is quite happy to stand up for the big end of town overseas at the expense of businesses here in Australia. They're quite happy to export Australian jobs into other parts of the world. That's fine. Labor can continue to defend that in the court of public opinion. We are standing up for working Australians. Employment 40 14:06 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the Turnbull government's progress in delivering jobs for the Australian people? 14:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Brockman for the question. Yes, I can. The economy created 50,900 jobs in June this year. The good news for the Australian people is that 40,000 of these jobs were actually full-time jobs. The figures show that the coalition's plan for a stronger economy is working. Thanks to the policies of the Turnbull government, we are seeing more Australians in jobs than ever before. In fact, since we were elected in 2013 we have seen the economy create in excess now of one million jobs. Total employment in Australia is at a record high of more than 12½ million. This includes a record number of 8½ million full-time jobs. Why is this occurring? It's occurring because those of us on this side of the chamber understand that you need to put in place the right set of policies that are going to enable businesses in Australia, in particular small and medium businesses, to prosper and grow. That's why we've delivered tax cuts to individuals. That's why we'll deliver tax cuts to businesses. That's why we're making record investment in infrastructure. That's why we're signing free trade agreements. That's why we're supporting innovation and science. In the last 12 months alone 339,000 jobs have been created and 95,200 of these jobs went to young Australians. This is actually the strongest jobs growth for young Australians in around 30 years. You put in place the right economic policies to stimulate business, and it will prosper and grow and create jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, is there a supplementary question? 14:09 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister advise as to how the Turnbull government is encouraging Australian businesses to expand and hire more Australian workers? 14:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Last week I joined the Prime Minister in Western Australia with the member for Swan, Steve Irons. We visited a great local business, Thermo King West. Thermo King West currently employs 23 employees. They're also looking to grow their workforce. They're also very proud to tell us that they've taken on two apprentices. The owner, Mr Steve Da Rui, told us that his business had benefitted from the Turnbull government's tax cuts for small and medium businesses. Colleagues, what did this business owner do with this tax relief? He reinvested it straight back into his business, and it helped contribute towards the fantastic new premises that we were standing in. He's also received a $20,000 grant from the government's Entrepreneurs' Program. As a result of this grant, he managed to increase his number of employees by 10 per cent and grow his revenue base by 10 per cent. If you support businesses, they will prosper and grow. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Is the minister aware of any risks to the Turnbull government's plan to create more jobs and support Australian business? 14:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The evidence is there and the commitments have been made. The biggest risk to Australian jobs is Mr Bill Shorten and the Australian Labor Party. It is a fact that Labor and Mr Shorten have openly declared war on business and, in declaring war on business, on job creation in Australia. Why do we know this? Because, as an election commitment they have promised to increase taxes on small and medium businesses, if they are elected to office. Colleagues, that's 940,000 businesses with a turnover of under $50 million that will actually have their tax rate increased under a Shorten Labor government. Those businesses, like Thermo King West that I visited last week, employ 4.8 million people in Australia. We want to see those businesses incentivised to prosper and grow. Those on the other side are a risk to those businesses. Energy 41 14:11 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Last Monday, the Prime Minister told the ABC that his National Energy Guarantee had been 'endorsed by the party room already'. The next day, the minister's South Australian Liberal colleague the member for Barker, Mr Tony Pasin, said: I don't agree with the assertion that it has met with the approval of the party room … Who is correct—the Prime Minister or Mr Pasin? 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gallacher for his question. I'm very happy to let Senator Gallacher know—although we, of course, don't share all of the inner workings of the party room—that the National Energy Guarantee has been supported and endorsed by the coalition party room on more than one occasion in deliberations about the framing and development of the coalition's policy, which is part of a whole suite of measures we're applying, as the government, to bring down power prices for Australians. Our approach is about ensuring that Australian households and Australian businesses end up paying less for their power. That's why we reformed the retail market, making sure that people get better and clearer information in relation to their household bills and the opportunity to switch plans. That's why we reformed the gas market and made sure that Australians got priority in relation to gas. Of course, we've seen wholesale power prices come down as gas prices have come down as a result of the Turnbull government's interventions. It's also why we reformed the transmission market to make sure the way in which transition systems or companies could game the system ended. It's why we're pursuing the NEG: to make sure that, in relation to future energy policy in Australia, a premium is placed on getting lower prices and higher reliability. Indeed, the modelling released by the independent expert Energy Security Board has made it clear that Australian households stand to gain around $550 as a result of the implementation of the NEG. These are real savings that can deliver real benefits to Australian households, improve the reliability of energy and, of course, help to meet Australia's international obligations. That's why it's good policy. That's why we've continued to progress it through the states, why we'll progress it through the party room, and why we'll progress it through the parliament too. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question. 14:14 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia This is my first supplementary question. The chair of the coalition's committee on climate and energy, Liberal member for Hughes, Mr Craig Kelly, also disagrees with the Prime Minister's assertion, claiming: I think realistically we would need more time to consider this … Who is telling the truth—the Prime Minister or Mr Kelly and Mr Pasin? 14:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm not sure how things work in the Labor Party caucus. We've heard Senator Cameron and others talk before about them all being treated like zombies. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X 'Lobotomised zombies'—that's right; that's what Senator Cameron said the approach to the Labor caucus was. But in the coalition party room we work through each of the stages. So, yes, the National Energy Guarantee has been discussed in the coalition party room and the steps have been taken to endorse it at each step. Of course, the National Energy Guarantee will result in legislation. That legislation, too, will be considered by the coalition party room and we'll make sure that it has the fair and proper consideration. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, on a point of order. Senator Cameron AI6 Yes, a point of order on relevance. The question was: 'Who is telling the truth: the Prime Minister, Mr Kelly or Mr Pasin?' The minister has not gone anywhere near that point, and he should at least have the question drawn to his attention. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, you've reminded the minister of the question. The minister is allowed to address other parts of the question as well. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Thanks, Mr President. As I was making very clear, each step of the NEG to date has been endorsed by the coalition party room and the next steps will rightly go to the coalition party room too, exactly as is the normal process. But, of course, those opposite don't want to talk about the policy; they're interested only in the politics, because for them it's a track record of power prices only going up, whereas we're delivering the policies to drive power prices down. (Time expired) 14:16 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My final supplementary question: today, former Prime Minister Abbott said: I certainly don't accept that there is overwhelming support, as the Prime Minister says. Given former Prime Minister Abbott agrees with Mr Pasin and Mr Kelly, was the Prime Minister wrong or was he misleading the Australian people while denying the coalition's climate policies are the cause of his government's ongoing policy paralysis? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I've twice already sought to tell Senator Gallacher, the National Energy Guarantee has been to the coalition party room multiple times, each of the next steps in relation to its adoption has been supported and the government has progressed those steps successfully. When it comes to legislation to come to this parliament, it will go through the usual process as well: through the coalition party room. But I can assure those opposite that every single member of the coalition wants to see lower power prices. The National Energy Guarantee is part of our suite of policy measures to deliver lower power prices, whereas those opposite, of course, don't know what their policy is when it comes to energy. But such as that policy exists, we know that it is basically a doubling or thereabouts in relation to emissions reduction targets and a doubling or thereabouts in relation to the Renewable Energy Target, and that all of that will just result in higher prices for Australians and less reliability, unlike the coalition's policies, which are delivering lower prices and greater reliability. (Time expired) Energy 42 14:18 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Minister, Australia is blessed to have an abundance of resources available. Can the minister please advise the Senate how Australia's resources contribute to providing affordable, reliable energy? 14:18 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Stoker for her question. She's absolutely right: we are blessed, as a country, to have abundant resources that can be converted into cheap energy for the Australian people. The clear lesson around the world is that the countries that do develop their energy resources, if they're lucky enough to have them, have cheap energy. We traditionally have had that advantage. On our side of politics, we believe in the development of our energy resources to make Australia a strong economy, to create jobs, to support our manufacturing industry and to help households keep power bills down too. We support a strong resources sector in this country, particularly the individuals across our country who mine our coal, extract our gas, help underpin our economic development and help underpin thousands of jobs—not just in the resources sector but also in the manufacturing sector; all of the sectors. That's what we believe and that's what we are passionate about doing and developing. Right now, across Australia, our coal resources account for 60 per cent of the electricity produced in Australia, and our gas resources contribute 20 per cent on average to our energy resources. So 80 per cent of our electricity comes from fossil fuels that are developed here in this country. Unfortunately, the other side declared a war on cheap energy. They have declared war on these cheap energy resources because they don't want to see the coal extracted. We have their energy minister out there saying there's a 'coal delusion' across the economy. We have the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, saying that people who support the coal sector are 'knuckle-draggers'. I don't know if he said that in Central Queensland, but he says people who support coal are knuckle-draggers. Finally, we have some ray of hope here that some in the Labor Party have some common sense, because the member for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, has come back from Japan and said that the private sector should consider the construction of coal-fired power stations here in Australia. She has seen what's happening overseas with our coal in Japan; it can produce cheap power. That's why we back the development of this sector, we back Australian jobs and we back Australian families having cheaper power prices. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Stoker, a supplementary question. 14:20 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Minister, how has the Liberal-National government taken action on gas prices? 14:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland As I said, our gas industry is very important for our electricity sector. It supports 20 per cent of electricity production in Australia. Last year, that was threatened by the export of gas to other countries. When we saw—in advice to us from AEMO—that there was a shortfall potentially emerging, we as a government took action. We met with the gas industry the week after that. We imposed a gas export control framework. Since then, gas prices—gas offers to the market—have fallen by more than 50 per cent. Gas prices have fallen by about one-quarter in spot markets because we've been able to return more gas to the domestic market. Recently, just in the last few weeks, the ACCC issued a report saying that LNG producers have become more active due to a combination of factors, including 'the commitment made to the Australian government in the October 2017 heads of agreement'. We are determined to bring down energy prices. We've done that by taking action in the gas sector. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question. 14:22 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Minister, what more can be done to take action on gas prices and to increase supply? 14:22 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Well, in that same report that the ACCC released on gas markets in the last few weeks, they clearly pointed out one other point I made earlier in regard to Senator Stoker's question, which was that we need to develop our energy resources if we're going to bring down prices further. Further reductions in gas prices do require a supply of more gas coming onto the market. The ACCC said: While conditions in the east coast gas market have eased considerably since the extremes reported in 2017, only action by governments and the gas industry to increase domestic gas supply can bring material price reductions into the future …    That is the clear advice to governments; those that want to bring energy prices down have to come on the journey of supporting the development of gas supply. We need more gas supply in southern Australia. That's why we need to get rid of these unscientific moratoriums and bans in states that are depriving Australians of their gas resources, that are pushing up power prices for all Australians and that will cost jobs unless action is taken. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 43 14:23 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, the chairman's panel of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is made up of a who's who of the coal, oil and gas industry. The other thing that is common to these companies is the number of them that are Liberal and National Party donors. Collectively, the companies represented on the foundation have donated well over $10 million to the Liberal and National parties. Minister, how else can you explain the Prime Minister giving away nearly half a billion dollars of public money to these companies, completely unsolicited and without a tender process, other than as a thank you for their extraordinarily generous donations to your party? 14:24 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, the reason the government has made this significant investment is a demonstration of our commitment to the future health of the Great Barrier Reef, a very important national asset. When the former Minister for the Environment, Mr Tony Burke, provided funding to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, he said: The foundation protects and preserves the Reef by coordinating strategic research in such areas as reef resilience and climate change. …   …   … Funding available through Caring for our Country and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation will ensure that the Reef's unique values are protected. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation was established in 2000. The foundation has a record delivering on-ground benefits to the reef, working with a diverse range of reef stakeholders. The foundation has experience managing a diverse range of reef projects—projects which include saving endangered green turtles, restoring damaged reef ecosystems and investments in science to help corals adapt to a changing climate. The foundation has robust corporate and financial governance systems and processes. They have demonstrated their ability to deliver government funding appropriately—including, of course, funding provided by the previous Labor government. The foundation attracts substantial funding from the private sector. The government is seeking to build on and to leverage our contribution because the reef deserves that level of support. The government approached the foundation in April 2018 to ascertain their interest in establishing the partnership. Since the announcement of the grant, the Department of the Environment and Energy has also at numerous meetings engaged with the foundation in person and by phone. This new funding to the foundation will go towards meeting our targets in the Reef 2050 plan as advised by our existing reef advisory bodies. Of course, this now brings— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:26 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The companies represented on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation—Peabody, Origin, BHP, AGL, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Rio Tinto and Wesfarmers—all make a buck from burning or selling coal. The grant agreement for this money requires the foundation to focus on water quality and crown-of-thorns—all important—but, incredibly, there's no work required on climate change, the single biggest threat to the reef. Is this just a coincidence, or is it more about ensuring that you give large handouts to your corporate mates? 14:26 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia This is an investment through a not-for-profit foundation. Of course, as you know, Senator Di Natale, it's an investment that received bipartisan support in this chamber. Of course, it was passed into law during the last sitting fortnight. This is an important part of our overall response. Of course, it is not the only thing that government does whether it is in relation to climate change in general or in relation to the Great Barrier Reef in particular, but it is an important commitment which brings the government's overall commitment to protecting the Great Barrier Reef now to $1.2 billion since the 2014-15 budget—something that I would have thought that anyone who cares about the future health and resilience of the reef would have applauded the government for providing. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. 14:27 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria National resource management bodies are currently spending a fortune on tender applications with extraordinary levels of probity and, at the same time, they've been starved of funding and they're having to let staff go. Will the government give security to them along with the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and put this nearly half a billion dollars of public money out to tender properly? 14:28 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As I've indicated—and perhaps that answer wasn't very clear—the parliament has already legislated to provide this funding to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Indeed, it was legislated with bipartisan support through this chamber. It's a very important additional investment into the future health of the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, as far as the other parts of the question are concerned, the government will continue to comply and work consistent with all of the relevant rules governing government procurements. Energy 44 14:28 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I refer to the Energy Security Board's modelling of the government's National Energy Guarantee. Can the minister confirm that, according to the modelling, the government's plan will deliver no new coal generation between 2022 and 2030? 14:29 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In relation to the specific projections about the future mix and composition of the generation markets, I am happy to provide further information to the senator if I can. But certainly in relation to the modelling, as I've already highlighted to the senator, the modelling makes very clear that there are savings to be achieved for households and businesses across Australia and that those savings are quite significant. Australian households can expect to see a projected saving in the order of $550 as a result of the implementation of the National Energy Guarantee. That of course translates into thousands of dollars for small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses, all of which will benefit from the extra certainty the National Energy Guarantee will provide as well as from the lower energy prices. The National Energy Guarantee itself is part of the government's technology-neutral approach in terms of our support for energy development in Australia. We want to make sure that energy development is at the lowest price and that it is absolutely as reliable as is required to provide certainty for Australian businesses and households so that, when they flick the switch, the power will be there. And we want to make sure that we meet our international obligations. But, unlike those opposite, we're not into picking winners; we're into ensuring that we have a technology-neutral approach to the way in which the policies are applied. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Marshall on a point of order? Senator Marshall 00AOP I only asked one question, and it was a specific question. It was about the government's modelling and whether the government could confirm that it will deliver no new coal generation between 2022 and 2030. That's all I asked. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Marshall. You've kindly reminded Senator Birmingham of the question. He has 32 seconds remaining to answer. I note he said he will provide further information as part of his answer, but he has 30 seconds remaining to answer the question. Senator Cameron AI6 He knows everything else about it but that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, while I'm talking, please! Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Yes, indeed I did indicate that we could bring back further information if required. I can certainly inform the senator that the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan highlights the transition that's underway in the national energy market but, importantly, that low-cost thermal generation clearly is expected to remain an important part of our energy mix, including coal and natural gas, which produced some 87 per cent of total electricity generated in the NEM in 2017. And estimates are that there will continue to be very strong demand and requirement for such generation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, a supplementary question. 14:32 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria If the minister doesn't know, he should just say he doesn't know. I again refer to the Energy Security Board's modelling of the government's National Energy Guarantee. Can the minister confirm that, according to the modelling, the government's plan will deliver no new gas generation between 2022 and 2030? 14:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia (—) (): Once again, if there's further information in relation to the specifics of the energy mix, I will happily provide that to the senator in due course. I was just outlining some of the AEMO projections in relation to the energy mix, but an important point is that the government is not designing the NEG around the expectation that one or another energy generator ought to be supported over and above another particular one. We are developing the NEG on the basis of a neutral approach to technology, with a precondition and focus being on ensuring that it's reliable, that we have dispatchable energy in the market when it's required and, critically, that it's driving down prices. Driving down prices is what Australians care about. Australians care about the fact that, when they flick the switch, it's going to come on and, when they get the bill, it's going to cost them less. And that's what our policies will deliver. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, a final supplementary question. 14:33 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria Can the minister confirm that, according to the Energy Security Board's modelling of the government's plan, between 2022 and 2030 no new coal generation will be built, no new gas generation will be built and no new renewable generation will be built? Isn't it the case that the only impact of the National Energy Guarantee's generation capacity on the National Electricity Market is to decrease storage capacity by 75 megawatts? 14:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I don't necessarily accept the premise or the analysis that Senator Marshall has presented, but I'll happily make sure that we provide a response in relation to any of the facts that he has outlined—and particularly whether the facts are as he claims them to be. But what is very clear is that the National Energy Guarantee provides a reliability standard that is, for the first time, integrated in relation to emissions policy and energy policy in Australia—a reliability guarantee that means that the power is there when you flick the switch; a reliability guarantee that ensures that Australians can have confidence that, unlike in my home state, which saw the catastrophe of a power blackout, Australians don't face a catastrophe like that again. It has also been developed in a way to drive prices down to ensure that Australians get the cheapest possible energy in the future so that, whether they are a household or they are a business, they will get savings, rather than the power hikes they’ve had under Labor. (Time expired) Migration 45 14:35 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia My question is to Minister Fifield, representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Minister, Australia's population has now reached 25 million. If this year's federal budget papers are accurate, our immigration intake level will grow by nearly one million over the next four years. As of June 2018, the ABS estimated that our unemployment rate nationally is at 5.4 per cent; however, July 2018 figures from Roy Morgan Research suggest that the actual jobless rate is closer to 10 per cent. That means that one in every 10 Australians is out of work. At the same time, the new skilled occupation list for the immigration intake program has identified certain jobs that apparently not enough Australians are taking up. Can the minister confirm that Australia is facing such an imminent crisis that we need to import dog handlers as part of the skilled visa program? How many of these positions have been set aside? 14:36 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Georgiou, for your question. I can't speak directly to that particular visa category to which you made reference, so I would have to seek advice on that. But, Senator Georgiou, you are right that, based on estimates from the ABS, the Australian population did reach 25 million at 11 pm on Tuesday, 7 August 2018. That figure is an estimate of the resident population. It includes Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and temporary visa holders and New Zealanders who have been in Australia for more than 12 months out of the last 16-month period. It is also important to note that at any one time there are over two million persons in Australia on a temporary visa, including over 550,000 international students and graduates, around 130,000 backpackers and around 670,000 New Zealanders. It is important when we have immigration that we do ensure that we have appropriate investment in infrastructure. That's not something that has occurred in the past. I should also point out that the government is ensuring that our permanent migration program is managed in line with our interests and genuine needs. This means that 190,000 places available is set as a ceiling level and not as an arbitrary target to be achieved without reference to the needs of the community and the economy. Our predecessors oversaw record numbers of migrants coming to Australia and lowered the eligibility standards and moved places between visa categories to achieve the arbitrary targets. In contrast, we are reforming the permanent migration program to ensure that it is targeted, sustainable and delivering benefits. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Georgiou, a supplementary question. 14:38 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Is it true that Australia is also short of masseuses and that we need to import them from abroad? Will the influx of overseas massage therapists end happily for all Australians? 14:38 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Georgiou. Again, I would have to seek advice in relation to particular occupational categories. It is absolutely essential that we have public confidence in our visa programs. To maintain confidence, Australians need to know that these programs have integrity and work in their interests. This government approaches this area on the basis of skills and ensuring that the Australian economy has the skills that are needed to support productivity and growth. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Georgiou, a final supplementary question. 14:39 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Recent media reports have revealed that in New South Wales the state government has mandated government jobs, such as IT contracts with Sydney Water and other positions at the New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services, be sourced from offshore with a 20 per cent quota. What measures is the federal government putting in place to protect local jobs here in light of this disturbing revelation from New South Wales? 14:40 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thanks, Senator Georgiou. Again, I can't comment on what you have cited, as I don't have knowledge of that particular circumstance. So, again, I would need to seek advice on that. Defence Procurement 46 14:40 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister please advise the Senate what the Turnbull government is doing to ensure our maritime security, including our naval shipbuilding industry, for decades to come? 14:40 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Fawcett very much for his question, as a very interested senator from South Australia, but also as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Of course, the safety and security of our nation is the Turnbull government's first priority. As we set out in the defence white paper in 2016, which the Prime Minister and I released, the regeneration of the Royal Australian Navy is a key part of our strategy for maritime security. On Friday 29 June, with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Finance—Senator Cormann—Senator Fawcett and a number of other colleagues present as well, we announced the final step in finalising our historic naval regeneration, with the announcement that the Hunter class Future Frigates will be designed by BAE Systems and built by ASC Shipbuilding in Adelaide. Through that decision the government will deliver one of the world's most advanced anti-submarine warfare frigates, giving our military the potent naval capability that it needs. The Hunter class will provide the ADF with the highest levels of lethality and deterrence that our major surface combatants need. It will have the capability to conduct a variety of missions, independently or as part of a task group, with sufficient range and endurance to operate effectively throughout the region and, indeed, further abroad. The frigates will also have the flexibility, importantly, to support non-warfare roles, such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We know particularly how important that can be in our region, which is particularly prone to those challenges. It will incorporate the leading edge, Australian developed CEA phased array radar, and the US Navy's Aegis combat management system, with an Australian interface developed by SAAB Australia—the development of which Senator Fawcett, as a South Australian, is particularly proud. The Hunter class will be one of the most capable warships in the world. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question. 14:42 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister advise the Senate why the government's decision to invest in the Hunter class frigate is important for our naval shipbuilding sovereignty and for Australian jobs? 14:42 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales That is a very good question. Our sovereign naval shipbuilding strategy is underpinned by our decision on the Hunter class Future Frigates. This is a $35 billion program which will create at least 1,500 direct jobs and another 2,500 jobs throughout the supply chain right across the country. It will create significant opportunities for businesses large and small, both locally and globally. It will also guarantee Australia's naval shipbuilding sovereignty by ensuring that ASC Shipbuilding will become a strategic national asset capable of independently designing, developing and leading the construction of complex, large naval warships. The Future Frigates program is another example of our government's commitment to maximise Australian industry content in our military capability, ensuring that we deliver for Australian workers and Australian businesses. I also note that BAE Systems has already pre-qualified over 500 Australian companies— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question. 14:44 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's decision on the Hunter class builds on the government's overall naval shipbuilding plan? 14:44 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I said, the Hunter class frigates are the final step in our historic plans to regenerate the Royal Australian Navy. What the government has now announced is a build of 54 new naval ships in Australia, using thousands of Australian workers and businesses, delivering uniquely Australian capability. Whether it's the next generation of 12 Future Submarines that the Prime Minister and I announced in April 2016, whether it's the 21 steel-hulled Pacific patrol boats that we signed a contract for with Austal ships in May 2016, whether it's the 12 new offshore patrol vessels that we announced in November 2017, for which we will cut steel later this year, or whether it's the nine Hunter class Future Frigates that we'll build in Adelaide, with ASC shipbuilding cutting steel in 2020, the difference between those opposite and this government is that we are delivering. We have delivered on our commitments, and Labor has consistently failed to do so. (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef Foundation 47 14:45 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. On 9 April, the Prime Minister and Minister Frydenberg attended a private meeting with the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Dr John Schubert, and offered a $444 million grant without any tender or grant application process. There were no public servants present. The foundation's managing director said the Prime Minister's offer was 'a complete surprise' and was 'like winning the Lotto'. Did the proposal to grant the Great Barrier Reef Foundation nearly half a billion dollars originate with the minister for the environment or with the Prime Minister or with some other person? 14:46 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As these things usually go, this proposal originated with the minister for the environment. It was a new policy proposal put forward by the minister for the environment. It is a policy which supports the future health of the Great Barrier Reef, which Senator Keneally voted in favour of. This is a very important initiative which has gone through all of the appropriate processes of government, and we are very grateful for Senator Keneally's support. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a supplementary question. 14:46 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales What due diligence did the government undertake on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation prior to 9 April? Can the minister assure the Senate that this private foundation was contacted by the government, as part of this due diligence, prior to 9 April? 14:47 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia This whole process started some time ago. It started with high-level briefings from the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, and other eminent scientists. It involved Minister Frydenberg writing to the Prime Minister seeking authority to bring forward relevant proposals and it builds on— Senator Kim Carr AW5 You're going to blame Ian Chubb, are you? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator Wong's on her feet. Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU On direct relevance. The important date is 9 April. Senator Keneally's question goes to what due diligence the government engaged in prior to 9 April. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, you've reminded the minister of the question. I note he has 35 seconds remaining to answer. Senator CORMANN HDA The decision to provide the grant to the foundation followed a thorough policy development process, including cabinet consideration. It was part of our considered response to the widespread coral bleaching on the reef over 2016 and 2017. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation is an organisation that had been given the tick of approval previously by the then Labor minister for the environment, Tony Burke, and, as I've indicated, Senator Keneally voted in favour of the grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation on this occasion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question. 14:48 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The government has claimed to the ABC that information was sought from the private foundation in March, prior to its meeting with the Prime Minister. This morning the private foundation's managing director, Anna Marsden, said that neither she nor anyone else in the foundation was contacted or aware of any due diligence prior to 9 April. Who is telling the truth: the government or the private foundation? 14:48 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Obviously, I don't get involved in matters at that level of detail. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Well, Senator Cameron, you got involved: you voted in favour of the grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. What I will say is that I will take on notice the specifics that Senator Keneally has asked about and I will get back to the senator in due course. Welfare Reform 48 14:49 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Could the minister please inform the Senate how the Turnbull government is addressing intergenerational welfare dependency? What measures is the government putting in place to help people get off welfare and into a job? 14:49 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I thank Senator Colbeck for his question. The Turnbull government has a strong record in working to reduce intergenerational welfare dependency. With the proportion of working-age Australians now dependent on welfare at the lowest level in more than 25 years and strong jobs growth in the economy, we have an opportunity to make a real difference for Australians' lives and help more Australians break out of the welfare dependency mould. The Turnbull government has taken action with a number of measures, including the government's $96.1 million Try, Test and Learn Fund. Senators on this side of the chamber know that the best form of welfare is a job, and our tax cuts are designed to benefit all taxpayers, including those who move off welfare and into a job. The Try, Test and Learn Fund allows government to trial new and innovative approaches to assist some of the most vulnerable in our society into stable, sustainable employment. Tranche 1 saw 14 initiatives aimed at helping young carers, young parents and students at risk of long-term unemployment. Tranche 2 is open for application until 28 September and will build on the successes of the first tranche by investing $50 million in policy responses to support new priority groups with innovative ideas to help them become self-reliant. The government believes that all Australian taxpayers deserve tax relief. There are more jobs in our economy today than there were before. Since we came to government there have been over one million jobs created. We know that our Try, Test and Learn Fund is helping ensure that more people come off welfare. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a supplementary question. 14:51 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania How is the government addressing barriers to employment in areas of high unemployment? 14:52 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales We are determined to continue our work to address barriers to unemployment right across Australia, including in those areas where unemployment levels are too high. As we on this side of the chamber know, supporting jobseekers to overcome substance abuse will improve their chances of finding a job and reduce the risk of ongoing welfare dependency. This is not a measure about punishing people or ripping away payments; it's about helping them to address their substance abuse and put them in a better position to come off welfare. We are also assisting with drug and alcohol treatment and ensuring that it becomes an approved activity in the job plans of jobseekers from 1 January this year. We've also introduced a bill to establish drug-testing trials. Our social security system will help the government target funding towards programs and policies that help people into education. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a final supplementary question. 14:53 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Does the government have any plans to expand these measures? 14:53 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The government takes efforts to reduce intergenerational welfare very seriously. We have created the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, which will inquire into these important issues and recommend options for breaking cycles of disadvantage, measuring the effectiveness of evidence based interventions, the improvement of the financial capacity and security of families, and better coordinating services between tiers of government to support families. We are determined to help Australians live a better quality of life. That is why this government is focused on providing a welfare system that supports people who are most in need of help while also focusing on the economic conditions that create more jobs in our economy and encourage people off welfare and into work. Our tax plan will benefit workers who enter the workforce. (Time expired) Yemen 49 14:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Defence, Minister Payne. Minister, on 9 August an air strike by the Saudi-led coalition on a market area in the northern Yemen city of Saada hit a school bus. It is reported that 50 children were killed. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, immediately condemned the air strike and the fact that children were casualties, supported by aid groups on the ground. Minister, your government has already quadrupled weapons sales licences to the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and you harbour ambitions for Australia to become one of the top 10 global arms dealers. Is this why your government has been silent on this attack or will you take this opportunity now to condemn this attack? 14:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As we have indicated in previous comments on this matter and on the conflict in Yemen itself, we've called on all the parties to the conflict to continue to work with the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Yemen, Mr Martin Griffiths, to reach a political solution to this conflict. We have made representations to the parties in the conflict via Australian officials in terms of the importance of allowing unhindered access for humanitarian support and particularly the need to respect international humanitarian law. That would go to an event such as the one to which Senator Whish-Wilson refers. In relation to Senator Whish-Wilson's raising of the Defence Export Strategy, I need to reiterate to the chamber, as I have done before and in the estimates context, that the Defence Export Strategy does not include any changes to Australia's defence export control provisions. The Defence Export Controls Branch is, and will remain, separate and independent from the new Australian Defence Export Office. The criteria, the considerations, that all export applications are subject to have not been changed. They include the assessment of export applications against five criteria: Australia's international obligations, human rights, regional security, national security and foreign policy. The assessment of export applications is done on a case-by-case basis, looking at the end use, the end user and technology that is being exported. Those export applications are considered by Defence subject to that assessment process, including the assessment processes of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, my own department and appropriate intelligence organisations. As I said, it includes consultation across government to ensure all of those criteria are considered. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question. 14:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We know that the Australian military has previously conducted training exercises with the Saudi-led coalition around their blockade of Yemen and we know that Australia sold military hardware to the Wahhabi regime. Given the assessments you just outlined are top secret, how can you rule out that any arms exports of defence technology to Saudi Arabia or one of its allies in their war in Yemen were not used to assist in carrying out the air strike on 9 August on innocent children? 14:57 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I need to draw to the attention of the chamber yet again—because I did this on a previous occasion when Senator Whish-Wilson chose to misrepresent our engagement as part of the command maritime force in the Middle East with other countries, including Saudi Arabia, as an exercise activity—that, indeed, it is important for vessels that are working together in a combined maritime force to engage in familiarisation processes to ensure that they are able to deal with emergencies and are able to deal with crises in a ready manner and have some familiarity with each other's activities. That was the purpose, as I said, of the opportunity taken at the time of the vessels being in the same place at the same time. I've been through the process by which military exports, defence exports, are considered. The reflection of our international obligations, including the Arms Trade Treaty, the assessment against those international obligations, human rights, national security, regional security and foreign policy questions are brought to bear in all of those considerations. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question. 14:58 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I suppose I'll have to take your word on our arms sales to one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. The Wahhabi regime severely restricts freedom of expression, association and assembly, and torture of political prisoners is commonplace. Minister, what will it take for your government to join Germany, Norway and Belgium and suspend arms sales and any joint military operations or exercises with parties fighting in Yemen? How many more school buses need to be bombed by these extremists before you act? 14:59 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think it is also important to note that Australia regularly raises human rights matters with the Saudi government. We've raised them with Saudi ministers through our embassy in Riyadh and to Saudi Arabian diplomats here in Canberra. Minister Bishop raised the issue of women's rights and activists in a meeting—I think a matter to which Senator Whish-Wilson referred—with her Saudi counterpart, the foreign minister Al-Jubeir, in their meeting at the G20 in Argentina just recently. We are very strongly committed to working with the international community to advance those human rights across the world. That is one of the reasons why we worked so hard to become a member of the Human Rights Council: to work with a range of countries to end violence—for example, against women and girls—to support their economic empowerment—and those sorts of concerns that Senator Whish-Wilson has raised. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Payne, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 The point of order is on relevance. The question was, 'When will you join Norway, Germany and Belgium and suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia?' The PRESIDENT I0Q The minister is allowed to answer other parts of the question as put, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Payne. Senator PAYNE M56 I've outlined the approach that Australia takes in relation to defence exports both broadly and specifically in relation to Saudi Arabia. I have no more to add on that matter. But Senator Whish-Wilson did also raise other human rights issues, and the rest of my answer went to that point. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 50 15:00 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question without notice is for the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister explain to the Senate what capabilities the Great Barrier Reef Foundation will bring to this task of repairing damage to the reef that do not exist in Australia's existing science agencies such as CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science? 15:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Carr for his question. It's always a pity when you politicise an issue like the funding of the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Carr, you want to play politics with the Great Barrier Reef. We are investing in the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Carr, you would know that the Australian Institute of Marine Science and also CSIRO— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator Hinch on a point of order? Senator Hinch 2O4 Can we not start this session with the same thing? Back here we can't hear the minister's answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you. I was calling the chamber to order. We've done very well for the first hour. I'll remind people of Senator Hinch's request. They should be able to hear the answer at the other end of the chamber. Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M As I was saying, both AIMS and CSIRO do exceptionally good work in terms of protecting the Great Barrier Reef and, insofar as jobs are concerned, Senator Carr, sustaining the 64,000 jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef and, of course, ensuring the viability of the $6.4 billion that it provides to our economy. AIMS and CSIRO will both continue to be intimately involved with protecting the reef, including as key partners in the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program that I announced in January of this year, and that work, Senator Carr, as you know, will continue over the next 18 months. It has been articulated by both the minister representing the environment minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is a highly respected philanthropic organisation with a strong track record in fundraising, and it has a successful history of partnerships with a range of sectors. Senator Carr, your own government previously has endorsed this particular foundation. Again, you're hypocritical in terms of your criticism because you yourselves invested $12.5 million in the foundation in 2012. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, supplementary question. 15:03 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Given that this small private foundation has been chosen over Australia's existing science agencies, can the minister assure the Senate that the foundation will not duplicate functions and capabilities that currently exist in these science agencies? 15:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Carr, as you would be aware, when the injection of funds of half a billion dollars was announced, the minister clearly set out what the package was going to do. In the first instance, it is going to ensure that we protect the reef, its viability and, of course, the 64,000 jobs that are dependent on it. It also includes the nearly $444 million Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program, as you are aware, to be delivered by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. In terms of what it will be doing, it was clearly articulated: $201 million to improve water quality; $100 million for reef resilience and adaptation science; $58 million to fight against the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish; $45 million supporting other work including community engagement; and $40 million for enhancing reef health, monitoring and reporting. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a final supplementary question. 15:05 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I'd ask: why does the government consider it appropriate to force Australia's world-leading science agencies, including CSIRO and AIMS, to apply to a small private foundation in order to access taxpayer funding for their work to repair damage to the Great Barrier Reef? 15:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Carr, I completely reject the premise of your question. As I have stated, both AIMS and CSIRO will continue to be intimately involved with protecting the reef, including in particular as key partners in the reef recovery and adaptation program that was announced earlier this year, in January, and this is work that will continue over the next 18 months. As I've stated, Senator Carr, it is obvious that the foundation, based on past work it has done, has the ability to attract private sector investment. That is why we have it: the public-private partnerships that are able to be leveraged as a result of this investment. But, as far as CSIRO and AIMS are concerned, they will continue to be intimately involved in the management of the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Energy 51 15:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to provide some additional information in relation to questions asked by Senator Marshall today. Senator Marshall asked questions about modelling of the Energy Security Board. I can advise that more than 2,800 megawatts of new dispatchable capacity is expected to be built between now and 2030, under the modelling that the Energy Security Board has undertaken as it relates to the National Energy Guarantee. He further asked about investment in new thermal generation. I can highlight that, for example, AGL is investing $295 million in a new 210-megawatt gas-fired power station in Barker Inlet, South Australia, to replace two of the four Torrens A turbines; that AGL has also committed to a 100-megawatt upgrade to the Bayswater Power Station and a 252-megawatt gas peaker in Newcastle; and that EnergyAustralia, for example, plans to invest $400 million in a new 400-megawatt gas plant in Tallawarra, New South Wales. DOCUMENTS 52 DOCUMENTS National Energy Guarantee 52 Order for the Production of Documents 52 15:07 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria by leave—I move: That the Senate: (1)   notes the failure of the Energy Security Board and Commonwealth to release the full modelling for the proposed final design of the National Energy Guarantee; and (2)   orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Energy by no later than 9.50 pm on Monday 13 August 2018 a copy of all documents within the Minister's or the Department's possession or control relating to the full modelling of the final design of the National Energy Guarantee conducted by or on behalf of the Energy Security Board. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Energy 52 15:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Marshall and Gallacher today relating to the National Energy Guarantee. What a mess! What a mess energy policy is! We are five years into this government, and consumers are feeling the pain because the government has been completely unable, for the entire time that it has been in office, to settle upon an energy policy that will provide for the needs of Australian families and Australian businesses. And it's no good, really, coming in here and seeking to put the blame elsewhere—to blame it on the opposition, to blame it on previous governments, to blame it on unspecified dark forces operating in the community or to blame it on energy businesses—because there is only one group of people who should be taking responsibility for the current turn of events, and that is the government. The reason they have been unable to settle on a policy was in full display here in question time. At one end of the chamber, we had Senator Birmingham prattling on—reasonably sensibly, I suppose—with some of the information provided to him by the actual policy analysts who are supporting the government in their energy policy. At the other end, we've got Senator Canavan, whose relentless support for coal in the face of all of the evidence—in the face of all of the advice from the business community, in the face of all of the advice from energy companies—that coal is not financeable, that new coal generation is not the way of the future, persists. And he's not alone. Both Mr Pasin and Mr Craig Kelly have been out, in recent weeks, casting doubt on the National Energy Guarantee. And what do we see today? We see the Prime Minister, yet again dancing to the tune of this group of people who refuse to engage with reality, placing a drop to a couple of journos that they are going to possibly, at some point in time, contemplate underwriting new generation capacity. It's a funny way to do it, isn't it? It's a weird kind of broadcasting to get it onto the front page of a major newspaper. It would have been much more efficient to just pick up the phone, surely. They have a lovely directory over there for the House of Representatives. You can find the telephone number for Mr Pasin and for Mr Craig Kelly. You can pick it up and telephone them. But it seems to be beyond the reach of the Prime Minister to gain support from his backbench for a rational approach to energy policy. It's long past time that the government adopted one. It's time to come to grips with reality. It's time to come to grips with the advice that's been provided by organisations like the ACCC, the AEMO and the Australian Energy Market Commission. It is time to get a grip on what is happening in the energy system. There's been a lot of talk about the reports that were put out by some of those organisations and how they support new coal-fired generation. I can tell you they do no such thing. In fact, the AEMO report could not be clearer about what the future mix of energy supply in this country will be. They say: When existing thermal generation reaches the end of its technical life and retires, the most cost-effective replacement of its energy production, based on current cost projections, is a portfolio of utility-scale renewable generation, energy storage, distributed energy resources (DER), flexible thermal capacity including gas-powered generation (GPG), and transmission. There's no mention of coal, because coal is not the cheapest form of generation when we need to replace our existing assets. And that was quietly, just now, confirmed by Senator Birmingham. He ran through the new projects that show up in the modelling, that are assumed when the modelling is undertaken. There was not a new coal-fired power station among them. And it's absolutely consistent with what the government has been told by others. The Energy Council has said that new coal-fired power stations are uninvestable. The Energy Security Board, these hand-picked advisors, has said: … there would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant. The ACCC has made it very clear that its recommendation that government underwrite some of the risk associated with investment in new generation is not in any way targeted at coal. It is time for the government to come to grips with the technological and market reality about new generation and to stop pandering to its backbench, because it comes at the cost of Australian consumers. 15:13 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I'm amazed that the opposition wants to raise this discussion on electricity. If we turn the clock back a few years to when there was no carbon tax, what happened? Along came a carbon tax, and up went the prices. Of course, Mr Abbott and the coalition promised to abolish it if we won the election in 2013, and we did. And down went prices, the biggest drop in many years. I find it amazing. We have Senator Keneally here in the chamber at the moment. Just before she was kicked out of government in New South Wales, what did she do? Her government put in the gross feed-in tariff. What a circus! Sixty cents a kilowatt hour. How did it work? Wealthy people could— Senator Keneally LNW It wasn't the Keneally government. Senator WILLIAMS I0V We're getting a reaction now! The wealthy people could afford to put the solar panels on, and they paid them 60 cents a kilowatt hour. This is after they privatised most of the generators. Sixty cents a kilowatt hour, and who paid for it? It was the poor people. Even members of your Labor government told friends of mine what a crazy policy it was. And so I look forward to Senator Keneally telling us about bringing power prices down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Keneally? Senator Keneally LNW The good senator is misleading the Senate. It was not the Keneally government that brought in gross feed-in tariff— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point, Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally LNW In fact it was the Keneally government that stopped it! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Keneally, resume your seat, please. Senator Williams, continue. Senator WILLIAMS I0V Well, if it wasn't the Keneally government, she was certainly part of it because it was a Labor government before March 2011, when in came the gross feed-in tariff—and what a circus it was! Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator WILLIAMS I0V And then you sold the generators. You didn't sell Adele. That went for $1. Senator Keneally LNW Madam Deputy President, point of order: the Keneally government did not sell the generators either. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Keneally. Those are debating points. Senator WILLIAMS I0V It's good to get a bite. I will tell you why Senator Keneally is on her feet. She used to drive the bus in New South Wales and now she is here sitting down the back of the bus. But she won't be at the back of the bus for long. She'll want to be up the front of the bus. In fact, she'll want to be driving the bus. I've said to Senator Wong, 'Don't worry about us on this side of the chamber; get a mirror mounted in front of the chamber and look at those behind you, because that's where your enemies are.' And the one that used to drive the bus in New South Wales is the one who wants to drive the bus here again, for sure—and, of course, the same old, same old will happen. But for Labor to talk about electricity prices just amazes me. Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator WILLIAMS I0V Hello; the bus driver, Senator Keneally, is trying to take a point of order over there. We're talking about electricity prices. Here we are in a country wallowing in energy. Those over there simply despise coal. I can't believe that the CFMEU—the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union—donate money to the Labor Party and the Greens. What do the Greens hate? They hate construction; they hate forestry; they certainly have it in for the miners; and, when it comes to energy, all the Greens want is renewables—and don't go near coal, mining and iron ore. I can't believe the CFMEU donates so much money to those opposite. The Labor Party run down the Green road just to keep their Green competitors off-road and protect their political grass. It's just amazing that that union donates money to those people. The only friends that union has in here when it comes to mining are the coalition, who support mining and coal-fired generation. It's amazing how many plants have been built all around the world. There are 10 new plants in Japan and there are many, many more in China. But I'm sure we'll get on to that with the MPI today moved by the Greens about how we are going to prevent droughts. The Greens are going to prevent droughts by reducing our CO2 levels. Apparently if we have all renewable energy, we won't have a drought in the future. What a fallacy! It's quite amazing that those opposite want to go down the road of expensive electricity. All they talk about is expensive electricity, which will drive our industries overseas—shut the cement industry down here and move it over to China, where they put out more emissions. Those opposite are very much against the Adani coalmine. Well, Mr Shorten is against it when he's in Melbourne but he supports it when he's in Queensland. So it just depends which part of Australia he is in. Instead of these new coal-fired generators that are being constructed around the world, with hundreds of units of them in places like China, India, Japan, Indonesia, India and even Vietnam—with 34 units being constructed there—those opposite don't want them to burn the more efficient, Australian coal with fewer emissions and less environmental damage, they want to shut ours down and not open new coalmines and burn less efficient coal, brown coal, produced by countries, such as Indonesia and China, that have the worst effect on the whole globe. We're not living under a tent. When are people going to learn that we're not living under a tent in Australia? As Dr Finkel said, no matter what we do, we're going to make little or no change to the environment; just put the costs up. This NEG is about stability and bringing electricity costs down. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 15:18 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. Firstly, Senator Wong asked a question in relation to the coalition's $80 billion corporate tax cut. She asked: 'Will the minister keep his word to take the Enterprise Tax Plan to the next election?' The Minister for Finance, understandably, reiterated his commitment to delivering this handout, be it at the demise of his government and his party. We saw the government had yet another slip in the polls this morning, suffering a humiliating defeat in the Super Saturday by-elections. The results are in: this government is living in a fantasy land. The Australian people want investment in schools and hospitals and they want their Medicare card, not their credit card, to determine their level of health care. Let's go to the NEG. Obviously, there is a question here in relation to some of the answers from the ministers opposite. How's the party room meeting shaping up, Minister Birmingham? I see the Prime Minister's latest attempt to appease the anti-renewable ideologues in his party room misrepresents an ACCC recommendation to support new generators by using it as a coal fund. The mantra of Minister Birmingham quite often throughout question time this afternoon was, 'Every single member of the coalition wants to see lower power prices and greater reliability. Yes, the coalition is working together. Yes, it's working as a team.' But we're certainly not seeing that from this side of the House. We also see that it's a clear attempt by the Prime Minister to mislead his backbench and sneak the National Energy Guarantee through the coalition party room. The ACCC recommendation is not about supporting new coal power; it's about supporting hybrid renewable storage and gas projects. ACCC Chair, Rod Sims, had been clear about that, saying the recommendation is 'not targeted at baseload power, and it's not targeted at coal'. Mr Sims has also said, when asked about how he came to his generator underwriting recommendation, 'Nobody has mentioned coal to us'. The chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, has said there would be 'absolutely no way' anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant. That is why the industry has labelled new coal power 'uninvestable', and it is why AEMO and all serious stakeholders understand that new coal power plants in Australia are a fantasy. Federal Labor has been consistently clear there should be no taxpayers' money for new coal-fired power stations in Australia. If the Prime Minister wants to deliver a new coal fund to his party room, he should not be using the ACCC as cover for such a misguided, wasteful and irresponsible policy. The Prime Minister's inability to stand up to the new coal power obsession within his government reminds us that the biggest barrier to lower power prices for Australians is the chaos and division within the coalition party room. Indeed, Minister Birmingham continued to advocate for public investment in coal-fired power during question time today. Can you not see the cost of doing nothing? Look at the situation our farmers are in right now. Look at the drought and the suffering as a result of climate change. Look at the rising cost in power and the impact it's having on manufacturing in this country. Businesses are struggling because of this energy shambles created by the coalition. And, again, I reiterate, as of 2 pm this afternoon, Fairfax Media reported Mr Sims made it clear to the Nationals' party room that one of the 56 recommendations in the regulator's pricing report in June should not be described as 'underwriting coal' or 'favouring coal-fired power stations'. Federal Labor has been consistently supportive and constructive over energy policy, offering bipartisan support for an investment framework that would deliver investor certainty and start to bring an end to the energy crisis that has emerged under Prime Minister Turnbull—and absolutely seen power bills skyrocket for Australian households and businesses right across the country. 15:23 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I too rise to take note of answers from question time and, in particular, I note the answers that were given by Senator Cormann in relation to questions about the government's approach to company tax cuts. The Enterprise Tax Plan is absolutely important to ensuring Australia's competitiveness, and the coalition makes no apologies for fighting for lower taxes for business. The reason for that is that every time we do all we can to help businesses big and small succeed we create opportunities to help workers, big and small, in their incomes to get ahead. We make no apologies, not today and not ever, for our efforts to make sure there are more and more jobs being created for more and more Australians. As we have accomplished that objective in relation to small- and medium-sized businesses, we have seen the dividends paid in the form of record employment in this country. We now have workforce participation at its highest level ever and, to top it off, we have full-time jobs at their highest level ever. If that was not enough, the number of people who now require welfare in order to survive is at its lowest rate ever. It is a terribly good sign that the policies of this government that are driving economic growth, that are driving investment, are working. And we shouldn't stop here. We should continue to do all that we can to make it easy for businesses to get ahead. When they do, all Australians get ahead. When we create more jobs, when we invest more in Australian opportunities, the dividend is paid many times over. We heard much in question time today about the topic of energy. But it seems that those opposite have awfully short memories. I clearly recall that, during six years of Labor government, things happened to energy prices. But what were they? Prices didn't go up once or twice. They didn't triple. No, during that time electricity prices went up six times over. It's just not good enough. Australians deserve better. Let's remind those opposite of the failings of the previous federal and state Labor governments. They continued over and over to increase pressure on prices, and they did that by imposing job-destroying gas bans and moratoriums. They imposed unrealistic renewable energy targets and they expressed open hostility to investment in baseload power. What that has done is spook the market so badly that even the ACCC, in its recent report, has indicated how important it is that the government show support to investment in baseload energy, because of the mess that has been made by successive governments in this field. One has got to commend the government for being willing to tackle this difficult issue. Australians are depending on this government to take action to reduce energy prices. I'm proud to be part of a government that has a party room process that involves contributions from all of its members, where all can contribute the best of their ideas so that we can once and for all deal with the mess that has been created in the field of energy, so that we can make sure that we deliver what Australians truly want and need. And what is that? It is affordable energy, it is cheap energy and it is reliable energy. We need to know that, when we turn the light switch on, it's going to work. Businesses need to know that, if they depend on refrigeration, they're going to be able to afford the bill. That has not been a sure thing in recent years. I commend the government for being willing to deal once and for all with the problem of energy in this country by ensuring that we put downward pressure on prices and that there is the investment required to make sure there is reliable energy available for all. And it's working. The government's action has already had positive effects. Wholesale electricity prices are down by around 25 per cent compared to last year—a whole quarter! As of 1 July, retail power bills have been reduced right across New South Wales, South Australia and, importantly, in my home state of Queensland. (Time expired) 15:29 Senator DAVID SMITH 276714 Australian Capital Territory I also rise to take note of answers provided by Minister Birmingham to questions from Senator Gallacher and Senator Marshall about the NEG. Last week it was great to have the opportunity to see some of the innovative work being done in the electric and autonomous vehicle space in South Australia with Senator Bushby, Senator Storer and other members of this chamber. On the site visits we had over a couple of days, it was clear that there were opportunities to marry up advanced manufacturing opportunities with renewable energy investment. Effective policies that address Australia's long-term need to transition to renewable energy have the ability to bring about lower prices, lower pollution and more jobs both in renewable energy and manufacturing. What we heard from the minister in question time today was an impassioned defence of the National Energy Guarantee. But it was a defence that I suspect was aimed more at the minister's own backbench colleagues than at those on this side of the chamber. Indeed, I think the minister appeared to be repeating as a mantra that everyone was singing off the same song sheet, and if he did that often enough that would magically make his colleagues appear on side. What we still know on this side of the chamber is that the NEG is still inadequate. It only provides for 36 per cent renewables by 2030. That is an increase of little more than 250 megawatts per year through the 2020s. It will strangle the renewable energy industry and do nothing to reduce pollution, lower prices or create jobs in renewable energy across Australia. We know that power prices have gone up under this government. The proof is in everyone's power bills. We know that renewables are the cheapest form of new energy generation. We know that this government's targets will not be met and will not lead to major renewable projects being built before 2030. But that is still not enough for the minister's colleagues. Just today we've seen reporting again that a number of backbenchers oppose even this weak policy. The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, is reportedly placing conditions on his support for the NEG, threatening to cross the floor if his demands are not met. The member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, has said it would be no bad thing if the policy didn't get the support of parliament. That is hard to reconcile with the minister's comments about the team all being onside. And the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, has spoken of the need to keep coal in the system for a long time to come. The minister, if he was back in the chamber, would probably suggest that it's not unusual for the coalition to pretend that they are singing off the same song sheet when they clearly are not. It's not unusual. It's the Tom Jones defence, the defence used by the minister's colleague, the member for Kooyong, to justify handing over half a billion dollars without due process. What he knows, though, is that it's a reference to the wrong Tom Jones song. It's not about it not being unusual; it's about understanding that many of his colleagues are actively trying to burn down the house. The ideological warriors of the Right remain tied to coal and opposed to any form of transition to renewable energy. The government seems determined to appease them rather than produce an effective policy. The energy industry knows that new coal power plants will not be viable. The chair of the Energy Security Board has said, 'There would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired power station.' The government is offering to waste taxpayers' money on coal to appease its own backbench, rather than supporting the technologies that will help us transition to a 21st century economy, lower prices and emissions and support jobs now and in the future. We have already seen splits in the coalition over climate policy cause a change of party leadership, when the current Prime Minister was rolled in 2009. Once again the coalition is all at sea over energy. They are in chaos. They cannot make up their mind whether to accept and support new technologies or to tie themselves to the past. They may say that this is not unusual. We know that they're still trying to burn down the house. Whoever wins the battle within the coalition party room, it's clear that all Australians will be the losers, every day until the next election, when a Shorten Labor government will ensure that we put climate change and jobs back properly on the agenda in a way that is sustainable and delivers outcomes for all Australians. Question agreed to. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 56 15:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) today relating to a grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Our job in this place is to ask questions. Our job is to scrutinise. We are the house of review in this country. Senator Di Natale asked some very important questions today in question time about a highly irregular grant of $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. The Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into this issue—and I am chairing that inquiry—and let me say here today that there's still, after a whole day of evidence and after two weeks of this issue being raised repeatedly in the national media, a large number of important questions that have not been answered. And the ones that have been answered have not been answered with any reasonable explanation. For a start, whose idea was it to give this money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation—a foundation that has no track record and no experience in administering large, complex projects and significant sums of money? I asked that question to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation nearly three weeks ago in Brisbane, and that answer has still not been forthcoming. According to insiders, Minister Frydenberg said that he would not go on record saying that he was the one who came up with this light-bulb moment to give all this money to a foundation that is essentially becoming a clearing house so the funds can go back to the same organisations that used to administer funding for the reef. By the way, if you look at the historic administrative costs of the foundation, between 30 and 40 per cent of that money will go to administrative costs rather than to the reef and to important projects. We heard on the weekend that the Department of the Environment and Energy, apparently, had contacted the Great Barrier Reef Foundation to do due diligence. Once again, as pointed out in Senator Keneally's question today, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation have come out and said that that was not the case. How is it that the managing director of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation didn't know or wasn't contacted about any so-called due diligence by the Department of the Environment and Energy? By the way, one of the facts that they quoted was the amount of money that this foundation had raised from private donations. They didn't get it wrong just once or twice but three times in one week—so much for due diligence being done by the Department of the Environment and Energy. There are so many unanswered questions. Why was this money in one lump sum? It was nearly six years' worth of funding rushed through in time for the 2017-18 budget. What was the key purpose behind giving that money in a rush to a foundation that didn't ask for it, had done no work, had put in no application and were completely surprised—I would say shocked—when they found out that they'd received this money? This has never happened before in this country. A small, private charity with no track record or experience in administering large, complex projects has never been given that kind of money without asking for it. Overarching these probity questions that we are still asking and will continue to ask in our Senate inquiry is the bigger issue of why $444 million is being given to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation for bandaid projects when the Great Barrier Reef Foundation say on their own website that they want to tackle the big issues around the reef. They want to save the reef and they want to provide hope through communications to stakeholders around the Barrier Reef. The only thing that is going to give hope to the Great Barrier Reef is for us to reduce emissions, build no new coalmines and stop wholesale land clearing around the Great Barrier Reef. They are the only things that will give hope. I directly asked the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, 'Will you be spending some of this money on projects relating to those three critical things that can save the reef?' 'No, no and no,' was the answer. They said, 'That's not in our remit.' So you have to understand the frustration and the angst amongst the scientific community and campaigners who do want to save the Barrier Reef. It comes back to this question: why? Why that foundation? Whose idea was this? Why was no public servant present in the most important of meetings when this grant was raised? There are so many questions. We will get to the bottom of it. (Time expired) Question agreed to. BUSINESS 57 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 57 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kitching from today, 13 August, to Thursday, 23 August for personal reasons, and Senator Marshall for Monday, 20 August for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 57 NOTICES Postponement 57 NOTICES 57 NOTICES Presentation 57 COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 63 15:41 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Rearrangement 63 15:41 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That consideration of the business before the Senate on Monday, 13 August 2018 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Rhiannon. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 63 MOTIONS Bangladesh 63 15:42 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I ask that general business notice of motion No. 927, standing in my name and the name of Senator Rhiannon for today, relating to the humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh, be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? Senator McGrath 217241 Yes. Senator DI NATALE 53369 In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Once again we see the Liberal Party blocking the will of the Senate and refusing to allow us the chance to vote on an important motion. The Greens are extremely concerned about reports that Bangladeshi security forces have killed more than 100 people in the last few months. Members of Australia's Bangladeshi community have raised their fears directly with us. They want us to raise this issue in our parliament. We reiterate the call of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that extrajudicial killings must be halted and halted immediately. As Bangladesh's regional neighbour, I hope that the government will show come courage, encourage proper judicial processes, call for the immediate release of political prisoners and help the Bangladeshi government with the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the region. 15:43 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 line with the longstanding view of successive governments, given that formal motions cannot be debated or amended, they should not deal with complex and contested foreign policy matters. The Senate should not consider and vote on foreign policy motions of this kind without the ability to have a full debate given that they involve serious and substantial issues. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 64 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Drought 64 15:43 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate at 8.30 am today two proposals were received in accordance with standing orders 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert: Dear Mr President, pursuant to standing order 75 I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of public importance : the devastating drought affecting parts of Australia and the need to address the causes of climate change to mitigate future droughts. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 15:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm pleased to be speaking on the devastating drought affecting parts of Australia and the need to address the causes of climate change to mitigate future drought. New South Wales is 100 per cent drought declared. Queensland is 50 per cent drought declared. We have farmers shooting their stock—unable to feed them—crops not growing and the land turning into a giant dust bowl. We have communities struggling. We have our environment under extreme stress. Some farmers are calling it the worst drought in generations. In April, I visited Swan Hill in northern Victoria and met with local farmers, Indigenous people and community members. I saw a river system that is in crisis and a government that's turning a blind eye. The Murray, and the Victorian communities that rely on it, are at tipping point. There are no jobs, no businesses and no thriving communities on a dead river, and that's where it's heading. That's the Murray in Victoria; the impacts of the drought in the catchment of the Darling are far, far worse. This is a crisis. The Greens welcome and support the financial assistance for farmers, their families and the communities who are struggling with drought in the government's extension of the farm households allowance payments from three to four years. This has gone a tiny way to addressing the worst impacts of the drought, giving farmers a bit of support to enable them to buy in and pay for feed and water. But it's a bandaid. The drought relief package and the farm households support extension are inherently short term. They don't address the long-term structural changes that are needed in our agricultural environment to deal with the reality of drought and, in particular, to deal with the reality that droughts are increasing in intensity and frequency because of climate change. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged recently that droughts are going to get worse because of climate change. Only eight short years ago, Mr Turnbull supported Australia rapidly shifting our energy sources to 100 per cent renewable energy. At the launch of the Beyond Zero Emissions' 2010 report into 100 per cent renewable energy for Australia, he said, 'The science tells us that we have already exceeded the safe upper limit for atmospheric carbon dioxide.' In June, the Greens put forward a motion that passed the Senate and was surprisingly but commendably not vocally opposed by the Turnbull government. The motion called for protection for Australian farmers and our agriculture industry by implementing the Paris Agreement, which requires us to reduce emissions so that we get a temperature that is fewer than two degrees warmer than preindustrial levels. It called on the government to support the findings of the Garnaut climate change review, which found that, without concerted action on climate change, by 2100 there would be a 92 per cent decline in irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin and that reducing our carbon pollution is the cheapest and most cost-effective option for reducing climate change impacts on both our agricultural industries and rural and regional communities. This is because we cannot just adapt to four degrees of warming. We can't just adapt to a scenario where the climate of our wheat-growing areas has become the climate of the central deserts. You can't grow wheat when you have perpetual drought. So what the heck are Mr Turnbull and his government doing? We heard this morning that Mr Turnbull and his government are looking at underwriting a new coal-fired power station, for goodness sake! His government wants the Adani coalmine, the largest coalmine in the Southern Hemisphere, to go ahead—incidentally, with an unlimited water licence in areas of Queensland that are currently going through this drought. It's almost like he now doesn't believe that climate change is real enough to warrant proper action. The coalition's response to climate change was demonstrated by former Deputy Prime Minister and agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, last week. He said: If I thought that there was something that we could do in Canberra, that we'd all go into that big wonderful chamber and vote on an issue that would actually change the climate and make it wetter, then I'll move the motion and we'll do it. But it's not. What we're doing there is people saying this is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction and somehow that's going to affect global climate. It won't. This is Barnaby Joyce from New England, a region suffering dreadfully in this horrible drought. There is a tiny element of Mr Joyce's climate change denialism that is in fact correct: it is going to take a global effort to fix climate change. But Australia needs to pull its weight. Australia needs to be a team player. Let me refresh the minds of the coalition on what it means to be a team player. We're coming up to the AFL grand final soon. Each team has 18 players on the field. Each player contributes to that team. The team will get nowhere, will not succeed unless they all work together to achieve their common goal, which is kicking goals. What happens if you have a few players not pulling their weight? What happens if you have someone saying: 'Oh well, I'm not the star player, I'm not Buddy Franklin, so whatever I do doesn't matter. I'll just relax here and let all the others do the work.' That's not how teams work. On the global team of polluters, Australia is actually one of those big players. As part of the same global team that has to work together to tackle climate change, we need to pull up our socks and contribute. Although Australia might account for a relatively small percentage of global carbon pollution, we're actually the 14th-biggest emitter overall. Out of 196 countries, despite having a population of only 25 million, we're really close to the top of the league table of highest polluters per person. We are out rated only by the oil-producing states and by Trinidad, Tobago and Brunei Darussalam, who are not great role models. None of the big emitters above us on the league table have the massive per person pollution that we have, not even the US. Let's have a think about our exports. We're the biggest liquid natural gas exporter in the world. We are the biggest net exporter of coal in the world, providing a full one-third of global coal exports. If Australia is to be a team player, we need to act on climate change. We need to embrace renewable energy and create the jobs and the industries of the future, not stick with last century's energy systems because the fossil fuel mates from the big end of town have donated to both the government and the Labor Party. If the Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce and the coalition really want to protect our farmers, our agricultural sector and our nation's food security, they need to stop supporting polluting coal and the fossil fuel industry and start getting serious about reducing Australia's carbon pollution. In the words of Prime Minister Turnbull eight years ago, 'We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet.' (Time expired) 15:53 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I've said here before, as I've opened contributions in this place, that I always get very nervous when the Greens take an interest in agriculture and the plight of farmers. But it is good to see, at least, that their awareness has now peaked in an interest in our farming communities during this terrible drought. I haven't heard them mention it in this place before. If you just listened to the senator's contribution, you'd see that not one second of her contribution was devoted to providing any form of a solution for the here and now for our tens of thousands of farming families who are battling these current circumstances. Before I get into the substance of my speech, let me share some particularly inconvenient statistics with the senator. This current drought is the 17th declared drought of significant size that this country has had since we commenced recording climate conditions in 1864. Of those 17, there have been 10 major droughts, six of a lesser degree and, of course, the current drought we have. Out of the total 154 years, large tracts of our land have been declared in drought for 81 of those years. These have had names like the Federation drought, the great drought and the millennium drought. This isn't our first rodeo dealing with difficult climatic conditions in the west. I have good friends who live south of Hughenden, and I stayed with them during a visit to the west a couple of years ago. My colleague here, Senator McGrath, would know them and, I suspect, has been hosted by them on the verandah of that very same homestead. You can walk down the back steps of that homestead and go no more than 10 or 12 feet and turn over any piece of shale found in their backyard, and you will see a crab, a mollusc or a starfish. They are 1,300-odd kilometres from the high water mark of any ocean in this nation. So this business about changing weather patterns and the resultant impacts it has on the environment have been around for centuries. Only one cow is going to get fat during the course of this drought, and that's the cash cow upon which the environmental movement and the left-wing movement in this country will embrace. They will do anything—anything—to support their cause, with little or no regard for the people in country Australia. I don't think I have stood up in this place in the four years I've been here without making mention of the circumstances confronting the people in rural Australia. I've had debates out in the open with our friends in the Greens movement and other movements in relation to what's happening. But nobody has put one foot forward with a plan that will help people in the agricultural sector to get through this current challenge. People in the bush are well aware of the conditions in which they operate, and they make provision for it. Most of them are able to make their way through these very long and debilitating periods of dry and come out the other end. There are families who have been on the land, on the same properties, since 1864. They have survived that whole time. They know how to manage this. What they don't need is for this to be politicised and turned into some climate change debate. What they need are policies that will assist this nation to support those people who support our national economy. I've said it before and I will say it again: every single thing in our lives comes from primary production. The chairs we're sitting on, the clothes we're wearing, whatever we had for lunch, this building, this structure, the energy that comes out of the lights—everything—all start, in most instances, from primary production. What the people in the bush need is for this entire parliament and parliaments generally—state, federal and local government levels; and they're much better at it than the rest of us are—to be in tune with what their needs are during these difficult periods of time. I also note that not one mention has ever been made about the suspension of the live cattle trade that drove hundreds of thousands of heads of stock into the domestic market of this nation at a time when many of these enterprises were trying to build their resilience for the dry periods they anticipated they would go through. The market had a 120 per cent reduction in the domestic price of the commodity of beef in particular. As they went into this drought they had nothing. There was nothing in the cupboard because we, as a parliament, had ripped away their opportunity to prepare on that particular occasion. That's why we're seeing such a significant impact on their lives now, as we move along six or seven years after that event. So I urge my colleagues in this place not to use the people of the bush as some sort of political stick for them to pursue their causes. I know that my friends in the Greens won't be happy until all my poddy calves are sitting on the lounge with me, taking turns with the remote control. Until we can have a big juicy burger that I see them hoeing into down at McDonald's with a wrapper that says there were no little cattle slaughtered in the process of making this juicy hamburger, you have to leave the politics out of this. We as a nation need to recognise the contribution of primary producers and people who live in provincial Australia. We are a provincial nation—less than five per cent of our land mass is under metro. The rest of the people are out there working to deliver for our national interests and deliver our clothes, our chairs, the cars we drive and the fuel that goes in the tanks. What they need is less politics and more interest in how we will assist them to do what they need to do in a country that will always have these variations in the climate. 15:59 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland Before I turn to the issues I was going to address, I think it's important for me to address the comments made by Senator O'Sullivan. Whilst I respect Senator O'Sullivan's connection with the bush and his genuinely-held views on support for people suffering drought, as are mine, I think there is an inconvenient truth that Senator O'Sullivan omits, and that is that people on the land do accept that climate change is real. In fact, I'm looking at a submission from the Queensland Farmers' Federation from last year to a Queensland parliamentary committee. They said: QFF acknowledges that climate change poses a substantial challenge for all Queenslanders and the industries on which they depend. It is already evident that Queensland’s climate is changing and that many aspects of everyday life are also being altered by these changes. That is the view of the peak organisation representing farmers in our home state. Let's take that issue out of the equation. Also, I would like to agree with Senator O'Sullivan's comment that the issue of drought and the impact that it's having on regional communities is not something which should be the subject of partisan political debate. People want to see the major parties coming together to work out a solution. That doesn't mean that we can't be critical of the government, because, if we feel that what they're doing to assist people on the land in these desperate situations is not sufficient, then it's our responsibility to make some comment about that and to advocate for policy changes. We don't resile from that. That's not making it a political football; it's about our genuine concern and, having listened to people on the land, understanding what it is that they're seeking and trying to respond to that. I congratulate the many people and organisations that are out there right now on the ground helping drought-affected farmers in a range of ways, including donating food for families, donating food for stock and raising money. People are deliberately making purchases at the supermarket to assist farmers. I particularly want to pay tribute to the Rural Aid Ltd program called Buy a Bale which has delivered 160,000 bales of hay over the last five or so years across four states. This is a program I would encourage people to get on board with. Go to buyabale.com.au. Twenty dollars can buy a small bale of hay and assists with the costs of transport, which is a huge part of the issue. Getting the feed out to farmers is a considerable expense. If you want to go to $100, that will cover the cost of a large bale of hay. I also want to pay tribute to the young schoolboy from Freshwater in New South Wales who came up with the Fiver for a Farmer campaign, which raised $20,000 in 48 hours. So there are some inspirational stories. People are genuinely concerned about people on the land. We are a nation of battlers and it is getting harder on the land to make a living, but what happens in hard times is that Aussies get together and support each other. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit areas affected by the drought in Queensland, just outside of Longreach. I joined Bill Shorten, the federal Labor leader, the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, and our Labor for Regions local executive member, David Kerrigan. We met with local councils, community leaders and drought affected property owners. I note that Mr Shorten has recently made a contribution in the other place, talking about his visit and the conversation he had on Latrobe Station, speaking directly with drought affected farmers. We met with the Longreach Regional Council. They made the point to us that assistance is needed for restocking. Many of the properties have essentially destocked as the drought has progressed and there is a considerable need to look at ways to support restocking when the time is right. This is a devastating drought and those affected need our help. What is our response to this? Labor is calling on government to allow farmers full access to the $12,000 assistance payment now, instead of half now and half in March of next year. We know that this would be of great assistance to people on the land. We say: let's give the farmers the option as to how they spend that $12,000 household relief payment so that people don't have to wait till next year to get some of that money; let's let them make the decision. I know the government is looking at a review of the farm household allowance. This is a good opportunity for suggestions to come in, although the government has already done some work in this area, and I acknowledge that, in the extension of time for the allowance. Labor have also come out and said that, if elected, we would have a $20 million regional economic development fund. This recognises the fact that it's not just the farmers in regional communities who are suffering—although they are on the front line and they well and truly deserve our attention—but communities that depend on the farmers are also feeling the pain. We would create a $20 million fund to stimulate local economies and support local jobs. This would continue the work of the existing Drought Communities Program, which the government has failed to fund beyond this financial year. It would be redesigned to provide local communities with the support they need. This fund is targeted at providing funding to local government. They are the ones who are on the ground with shovel-ready projects, and they know how to spend money in the most efficient and effective ways possible. This might well go to things such as road and street infrastructure. It might go to small-scale capital developments like community facilities and sporting fields. These are the types of things that can make all the difference for local communities. They're not huge amounts of money but they provide jobs and economic activity, which is exactly what these communities are looking for. We've also just recently come out and suggested that there should be 100 new Centrelink community response officers, including local outreach services. One of the things we know is that there are 15,000 eligible farmers—that's about two-thirds of all eligible farmers—missing out on the farm household allowance. That is an amazing figure. It could well be that there are some farmers who don't want to apply for it, but we all know the concerns about the difficulty of applying for the farm household allowance. The application process has been the subject of many complaints, so we're concerned about the fact that there are people falling through the cracks. Busy farmers don't have the time to wade through the bureaucracy, so having community response officers on the ground to help provide quicker access to income support with better links to financial counselling and mental health services is going to be a very concrete, practical way to assist people on the land. I also want to make a point about water conservation. When I visited St George recently, which I've previously spoken about in this place, I saw how farmers use government incentives to conserve water. We know that the vast majority of farmers are the best stewards of the land. They know how to make use of these precious resources. These are all factors that need to be addressed when it comes to considering climate change, but we need to help our producers to implement better irrigation and conservation methods, and we need to support them to switch to less water-intensive industries where possible. I also want to highlight the fact that I have a regional inequality hearing of the Senate Economics Committee in Emerald on 29 August. 16:09 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria Over the past few weeks, I've spent quite a lot of time in places like Echuca and Wang and Shepparton, with Sam Kekovich, and Sale, Warrnambool and Morwell. The last time I was in Morwell was about 30 years ago, in a paddy wagon—that was interesting. I've learned about the green drought. I've learned a lot of what the farmers are up against. They claimed that the assets test from the federal government was too low and too hard. It has been lifted, of course, from $2.6 million to $5 million now. A lot of them were not aware of that. I hope that the Victorian government will take on what the New South Wales government has done, and that is offering interest-free loans to farmers. Droughts are cyclical, and this one has been going for five years. Droughts in farming life are cyclical. I hope that the federal government will also consider that law for interest-free loans. To be fair, some farmers and especially their wives said: 'We don't want any more loans. We're drowning in debt. We don't need any more.' But at least, over seven years, it gives them time to decide what they're going to do, whether their family is going to take over the farm, whether they're going to stay on the farm and what's going to happen. I agree with Senator Ketter that it should be the farmers' right to get the $12,000 now, if they want it all now, rather than $6,000 now and $6,000 later. I was surprised that people scoffed at the fact that it seemed such a measly amount of money, but at least the farmers I talked to were pretty happy about getting some money to pay for some food. The other thing I think we have to look at is getting water from reservoirs in the affected states so we can try to anticipate or at least prepare for a better way for the next drought, because they do come and they will keep coming. I want to also thank Woolies and Bunnings for what they have done for the farmers. The young boy you mentioned with his 'A fiver for a Farmer' is terrific. The Buy a Bale scheme is terrific. Farnham and his concert will be terrific. But the things we have to look at are getting the money to the farmers as fast as we can. You've seen that the price that they're selling their animals for at the moment has dropped. I think I saw one time that it was $2,000, suddenly dropping to $150 or something like that. I was, as you always are, impressed by their resilience, by the backbone of the Australian farmers. I just hope that everybody in the city—and we are becoming more aware of it—gets behind it, puts some money into it and tries to help the farmers out and that we get somewhere. 16:12 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland The devastating drought is having an impact on rural and regional Australia, particularly south-west Queensland and western and north-western New South Wales, at the present time. It's good to be able to enter this debate to again highlight this very devastating drought. I'm always pleased to follow my Queensland colleagues, and I'm pleased that Senator Ketter made reference to those who are doing so much to try to help those in difficult circumstances by donations of food and money and other support across a wide range of organisations. I won't repeat them. Senator O'Sullivan, of course, is one of perhaps only two senators—perhaps Senator Williams as well—who really understands farming. Senator O'Sullivan really understands western Queensland and south-western Queensland. I know that Senator Williams, who has just joined us, knows what it's like in the drought-affected areas of New South Wales. The government has responded to this calamity as the government always does. I've been in this parliament a long time now, and there are any number of regrettably too-much-occurring droughts in this country, but the government will always step up to help those in real need. I was delighted that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, with Senator O'Sullivan and with the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud, whose electorate encompasses much of the south-western Queensland area that is drought affected, recently visited there. New initiatives were announced by the government, which has invested almost $1.3 billion in delivering support to farmers since 2013, when this government came into power. Just recently we announced an extra—and I emphasise extra—farm household allowance payment of $12,000 to recipients. This brings the total payment for a couple to around $37,000 and for a single to around $22,000. That will apply shortly, subject to passage through the parliament. The farm household assistance income test threshold has been increased from $2.6 million to $5 million net, and that's again effective from later this year. Both of these supplementary payments and the threshold increases apply while a review of the whole farm household assistance program is undertaken. I mention in this very short debate an extra $5 million to go to the Rural Financial Counselling Service to cover increased demands. Importantly, droughts and natural calamities always play very big in the mental health of those affected, and the government has provided an $11.4 million package towards mental health, including an Empowering Communities program; removing face-to-face consultation requirements to allow farmers who need additional support to access Medicare's Better Access through telehealth; and a youth awareness-raising initiative in drought-affected communities. We're also investing some $15 million in the Foundation for Rural & Regional Renewal to facilitate small-scale grants to not-for-profit community groups to address immediate community needs in drought-affected areas. These announcements made recently by the government bring the government's current commitment to farmers in drought to $576 million, and, as the Prime Minister made clear, we're not done yet. Managing this drought requires agility, and we will continue to review the measures that need to be taken. Senator Ketter spoke about a $20 million regional economic fund. It's good that the Labor Party are at last following the government in helping rural and regional communities. Our Drought Communities Program facility has worked in the past. I was recently in Julia Creek. Julia Creek, fortuitously, is not in drought just at the moment, but it was a few years ago. This money was given not to the farmers but to the community, and they built some very, very interesting tanks that you can sit in that bring tourists to Julia Creek, would you believe. They're too difficult to explain, but it's a wonderful initiative of the McKinlay Shire Council. Congratulations to the mayor and her councillors on using that drought communities funding so well to help communities and the workforce in their communities. It is unfortunate that the Greens always continue to try to make political capital out of drought. Senator Ketter even mentioned that the Queensland Farmers' Federation were talking about climate change. As Senator O'Sullivan pointed out, there are crabs from 15,000 years ago in the backyards of properties near Longreach. Once upon a time the centre of Australia was covered in rainforest, so clearly the climate's changing. Nobody denies that. You've only got to look back through history; the world was once covered in ice and snow. Clearly, the climate has changed all along, but unfortunately the Greens continue to try to make political capital out of that. I despair at that and condemn them for it. We need to try to drought proof the country—you'll never do that—by getting some more water storages in the country. Regrettably, the Greens political party won't let the state governments—in my case, the Labor government of Queensland, who are only in power because of Greens preferences—actually build dams. The coalition, the federal government, have funded feasibility studies. We've encouraged the Rookwood Weir. Regrettably, the Labor government because of pressure from the Greens political party feels that it cannot enter into these drought-mitigating measures. Australia could be much better prepared for droughts if there were some additional storage. I'm fortunate. I live in the Burdekin delta, where we have the Burdekin Falls Dam built by the Fraser government. In Emerald, we have the Fairbairn Dam, another coalition government initiative. We need more of those to try to help people through these difficult times. But, until we can get that, this government will continue to make funds available to give every assistance possible to help drought-affected families get through their days. 16:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales There is a devastating drought that is gripping many parts of Australia. We've seen media coverage of this recently, and it includes heart-rending imagery of people on the land managing their properties, managing their stock, managing the economic impacts on their families and managing and responding to the economic impacts in their towns. These scenes move Australians here in the chamber and out there in our communities. More Australians may live in the cities than ever before—we are a fundamentally urban place—but our sense of national identity is still tied up with the outback and with the people who live and work in it. It's difficult to see those images of struggling farmers and not ask the questions: why is this happening? Why is it like this? Why now? The answer that is offered a lot by people who don't want to come to grips with our present reality is to quote Dorothea Mackellar, 'droughts and flooding rains'. They say: 'It's always been like this. It always will be. Nothing's changed.' Senator Williams I0V That's true. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Senator Williams interjects and says, 'That's true.' We have had droughts and flooding rains—that is true—but they are getting worse. It is no longer the full story to point to historic variability, because climate change is affecting our weather. It is affecting our weather, our long-term climatic patterns and our agriculture sector. It's intensifying the variability that has always been a feature of the Australian landscape. Included amongst the many people who are paying a price are our agricultural producers. Earlier today, over in the other place, the opposition leader spoke of a conversation that he'd had with a farmer who runs sheep and cattle out near Longreach. She told him that a lot of farmers—people close to the land—feel like the drought cycles are getting longer and longer and the periods of relief and rain are getting shorter and shorter. And she is right. That is what the scientists are telling us. We are starting to see the impact on Australia's climate, which the scientists have been predicting for years. We are a land with variable and often harsh weather, but the effect of climate change is to make our weather more variable and more harsh and it's our farmers, often, who pay the price. In 2011, Professor Ross Garnaut updated his review. He commented: While it is difficult to attribute specific causes to individual severe weather events, climate change is expected to increase the risk of extreme events. The changes include greater frequency (heatwaves, bushfire conditions, floods, droughts), greater intensity (all of these plus cyclones) and changes in distribution (average rainfall). More recently, the State of the climate 2016report by the CSIRO, our science body, found evidence of exactly that in our weather conditions. Australia's climate has warmed, with around a 1 °C increase in both mean surface air temperature and surrounding sea surface temperature … It's a shame people on the other side aren't listening, because these are actually important facts that people may need to engage with. It is a warming of one degree since 1910. The oceans around us are also warming and ocean acidity levels are increasing. Sea levels have risen around Australia, and the rise in mean sea levels are massively amplified when we get a high tide or a storm surge. We see significantly more impactful events, like we did in North Queensland through Cyclone Yasi and some of the other big events we've had up there. But most telling, if you're a farmer and you're facing drought, is this: The duration, frequency and intensity of extreme heat events have increased across large parts of Australia.       …      …      … There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.       …      …      … May-July rainfall has reduced by around 19 per cent since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11 per cent since the mid-1990s in the April-October growing season rainfall in the continental southeast. These are observed changes to the Australian climate. They are observed by the CSIRO. They are observed by the scientists that we engage, on behalf of the Australian public, to measure and assess our climate. But they're facts that people on the other side of the chamber consistently and persistently deny in this place. Australian farmers actually live day to day with the truth of those statistics and, more than most, they have a firsthand understanding of the need to take meaningful action on climate change. Back in 2008, a decade ago, the National Farmers Federation made a submission to the Garnaut review. They said: The NFF recognises that it is in the interests of all Australian farmers that appropriate actions are taken to reduce the risk of increased climatic variability or adverse climatic changes occurring in the future. They haven't resiled from this position. Nearly 10 years later, in their response to the Department of Environment's review of climate change policies, they said: Australian agriculture has always operated in a varied and challenging climate. What we now know from the scientific community is that we face a rate of change much faster than was previously expected. The continued success of the agriculture sector will depend on our ability to continue to innovate and adapt to best manage future climatic risks. Agforce's statement on drought on their website says: Australian farmers do take the primary responsibility for managing their climate risks, but they need government policies that facilitate and support their efforts to do so. But that support is sorely lacking, because the government does not take climate change seriously—it is missing in action. One of the first things the government did was defund the Climate Change Authority, the body set up to look at Australia's emissions, to look at the impact of climate change, to look at what other countries were doing in terms of reducing emissions, and to provide advice to government. The government defunded it because they didn't want to hear what it had to say—because there is a fundamental distrust of science on the other side of the chamber. This is a government that wants to be free to choose its own facts. In 2016 the then environment minister told ABC radio that Australia's emissions had peaked. That's not right. The latest update to the government's own tally of emissions, released in May this year, showed that Australia's emissions had climbed for the third year in a row despite electricity use falling. This is a government that has no intention of seeing our emissions reduce. It's a party whose backbench energy committee is chaired by the member for Hughes, a man who has material on his social media that suggests that the real climate threat is global cooling. I asked the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, at estimates whether his government agrees with this proposition from Mr Kelly, and I look forward to receiving a proper answer from Senator Cormann in the coming weeks. Climate scepticism bleeds into the government's policies across the board. Their decision to limit emission reduction in the electricity sector to its pro rata share means that other sectors will have to work much harder if we are to meet our targets. And I tell you what: it's a lot cheaper and a lot easier to reduce your emissions in your electricity sector. We know that we have very, very cost-effective options in renewable energy. What we don't have are cost-effective options for emissions reduction in the agriculture sector. One of the things the National Party might wish to think about is how they are going to go back and explain to their constituents that they want to see a lot of heavy lifting done by the agricultural sector in terms of emissions reduction. What does that actually look like—destocking sheep and cattle? It is a ridiculous proposition and one that has yet to be adequately explained by the government. At the same time that farmers have to deal with extreme weather events caused by climate change, they'll be asked to contribute much more to emission reduction efforts than is necessary, because the government doesn't have the guts to take on the climate sceptics around emissions in the electricity sector. Proper drought relief isn't just about providing financial assistance, although that is absolutely critical. It's also about doing what we can to reduce the risk of droughts being bigger and harsher than ever before. It requires us to take climate change seriously and act in partnership with the international community. I am proud that Australian Labor have been deeply committed to this for more than a decade and demonstrated that commitment through our actions when we were last in government. And I am proud that we approach the next election with a very clear plan to take serious action on climate change. We will reform the electricity sector. We will reform the transport sector. We will reduce emissions across the board. We cannot afford to do nothing and to let our agricultural sector pay the price. We will all regret it if we continue as we are. 16:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak to this debate. In relation to thinking about the impact of climate change on drought in this country, you can't go much further than looking at what on earth is going on in the Murray-Darling Basin. We know, of course, because there is a royal commission going on in South Australia right now that is gathering evidence from right across the board that, even with a plan that's been put on the table along with billions of taxpayers' money to deal with the Murray Darling Basin and try to put that river back on to a sustainable footing, climate change was never included in that plan. Here we are at a time when we should be focused on the impacts of climate change, what we can do about reducing carbon pollution and not making climate change worse, but when we also need to deal with the realities that confront us. We have a Murray-Darling Basin that is being managed appallingly. The plan has not been based on science. We've heard that over and over again from the evidence from this royal commission. It's setting the whole country up to fail. The Murray-Darling Basin is the lifeblood of this nation. It waters our nation's food bowl, yet it has been mismanaged for decades. Now, even though there's seemingly a plan in place, that plan is riddled with errors, mismanagement and corruption. There are heartbreaking stories coming in from all over the country in relation to drought hitting rural Australia and communities incredibly hard. I tell you one group that isn't suffering so much, and that's the owners of Cubbie Station. With their dams full of water, they're not feeling the pinch much at all. They take water to fill their dams, their tanks and their channels for a not-so-rainy day; meanwhile, downstream the rest of the communities suffer. If we're serious about dealing with climate change and drought in this country, we can go no further than looking at the absolute failure of managing properly the environmental and community needs throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. I want to put on the record today that I'm disgusted as a South Australian that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government in South Australia is now looking to end this royal commission as quickly as possible when, in fact, they should be fighting for the federal government and the department to front it and give evidence. (Time expired) 16:32 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I rise to contribute to this debate. It's a serious and severe drought. I remember the drought of 1977 in South Australia, when my father said I could have my first paddock of barley. Sixty-three acres I sowed into barley. It was a drought when we harvested the barley. It just covered the freight, the contract harvesting and the fertiliser bill. There was nothing left—my first lesson on farming. I remember so well the '82 drought and the '94 drought, where grain prices went through the roof. We had a piggery and were paying $240 to $250 per tonne of wheat and barley. When we sold our pigs at the end of each month, we didn't have enough money at the pig sales to cover the grain prices, let alone the work, the electricity and everything else my brother Peter and I had to contribute. How well I remember the 2002 drought. I've been very lucky where I'm situated, where my wife, Nancy, and I farm near Inverell. We had 39 inches of rain last year and average rainfall of around 29 inches. We had 36 inches the year before. We had hay in the shed. Sadly, we've only got two bales left. With rains in March this year, I got oat sown. We fluked some further rains after that—a couple of inches. It is amazing how patchy the rain was. My good friend, Storm Baldwin, just 10 kilometres down the road, when I had two inches of rain, had not a drop. We were lucky to get another 43 mils about five weeks ago and a few more crops sown. What amazes me is that people in this chamber think that we're going to change the planet. No, we are not. If Senator McAllister is serious about reducing carbon emissions, team up with the Greens and your left wing. Go across to China and protest in a couple weeks time about the extra 299 units of coal-fired power generation being constructed to add to 2,107 units already in action. Those extra coal generations being built in China will produce 670 million tonnes of CO2 a year. We produce a total of 550 million tonnes a year in Australia. Just those extras in China will produce more than the whole of Australia. Somehow we think if we reduce our emissions from 550 million tonnes to 500 we're going to change the planet. Senator McAllister says that Labor in government will have cuts right across the board—the transport industry and the generation industry. They'll probably attack the agricultural industry as well. I remember well, when we had the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, about 90 million tonnes of CO2 were put into the atmosphere. I said to the department, 'What goes here? Do you count that?' and the department said: 'No. When the grass burns, it grows again and absorbs the CO2, so we don't count that.' That can be the same for the farmers and graziers as well: when the cattle eat the grass, the grass grows again, and that will neutralise it. That's how the department works with bushfires; it can do the same with agriculture. If you think winding back our cattle and sheep numbers is going to change the planet, you are off this planet, seriously. The number of coal-fired generation plants being built is amazing—32 units in Indonesia, 34 units in Vietnam, 10 units in Japan and 130-odd units in India. Guess what they're going to burn in those coal-fired generation plants. They're going to burn coal. Will they burn more efficient, Australian coal? Of course they won't, because the green movement and the Labor Party are opposing coalmines. So they won't buy the more efficient, blacker coal in Australia, the older coal that puts out fewer emissions; they'll choose the less efficient brown coal from Indonesia, China et cetera and, on a global scale, produce more CO2. And you think, through this motion here, you're going to do away with droughts! This is just amazing. The big drought of the late 1800s and early 1900s, from 1897 to 1902, was a drought that so many of our grandparents talked about, the severe one. Drought has been going on for a long time. If you think you're going to change drought by upping our CO2-emissions reductions in this country when the rest of the world, the big emitters such as China and India, are producing more and more—Dr Finkel told Senator Macdonald at Senate estimates that Australia could reduce all of its emissions, the whole lot, and the change to the planet would be virtually nothing. We're going down this costly road for energy, shifting our industries overseas and shutting down manufacturing. Those industries are going overseas to countries where it's cheaper to produce and manufacture, and they are actually producing more CO2 than they would have if they had stayed here. The cement industry is a classic example. If you produce a tonne of cement in Australia, you make 0.8 of a tonne of CO2; if you produce a tonne of cement in China, it will be 1.1 tonnes of CO2. Under that stupid carbon tax of the previous Labor government—which we're never going to have—which threatened to shut down our cement industry and shift it to China, we would actually produce more CO2 for the 10 million tonnes of cement we produce in Australia. I'm amazed at the poisonous gases in the atmosphere. When you see the pollution in places like Vietnam and Hong Kong, that is not CO2. CO2 is odourless, colourless and non-toxic. But what are we doing to reduce the poisonous gases—the carbon monoxide, lead, sulphur and smoke? We don't hear any complaints about that. The poisonous gases are all right; just keep them going up and up around the world. You go to countries where you don't even see the sun and you don't see any stars. Luckily, I live out on a farm where you can see the stars, sadly too often at the moment because there's no cloud at night. But to think that you're going to change the planet—go to those countries, Greens senators. Line up with your left-wing Labor senators. Go there and protest about the building of new coal-fired generation and see how you get on. You won't get on very well at all. 16:38 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland This is still not my first speech. I rise to say a few words regarding the baseless and, frankly, offensive effort by the Greens to co-opt the tragedy of the severe drought affecting many parts of Australia to promote their obsession with climate change. Belief in climate change as the cause of all climatic ills is superstition. Like seizing on coincidental good fortune to support your belief in horoscopes, belief that every hot day is somehow further evidence of climate change is confirmation bias of the most ridiculous type. Despite the evidence of repeated fraud amongst researchers who have purported to show climate change, the Greens' belief in their superstition remains unshakable. Their unending demands for expensive and unreliable power are like a snake oil cure for illness that you don't have or like a broken record playing the same off-key tune again and again. A country like Australia is always subject to periodic droughts. It is not climate change; it is just geography. Next to Antarctica, Australia is the driest continent on earth. The solution to drought is not to bleat about climate change and frantically build windmills everywhere. The real solution is to build dams and irrigation projects. The best form of drought relief is water. If North Queensland were a country, it would be the wettest country on earth. The problem is that monsoonal rains just pour down rivers and run out to sea. If we turn those rivers back and capture the water, dry cattle country and deserts would suddenly be lush green fields. This would not only ensure our own food requirements are met but also provide food for many hundreds of thousands of others in other countries as well. To imagine the benefits, we only need to see what has been achieved in places like Israel and California. Both are places in which virtual deserts have been transformed into enormous food bowls which help drive their respective economies. There is a proposal to do this. It's called the Bradfield scheme, and I'll have more to say about it tomorrow. 16:41 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia Drought is a terrible scourge, but in Australia, especially in rural and regional Australia, it is as certain as night follows day. The millennium drought, the Federation drought and the terrible consequences they've had for people living on the land are fixed in our history. Now the resolve, the grit, of country people is being tested again. Ordinary Australians have risen to the challenge, too, dipping into their pockets to support those less well-off than themselves. I encourage others listening to join the effort if they have not already. Drought is hitting much of eastern Australia again, with New South Wales and Queensland bearing the brunt. But parts of north-eastern South Australia, my home state, have not escaped the ravages of this drought. Parts of South Australia have had their lowest rainfall on record, as have many places further east and north. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, there's only been one Australian autumn drier than this one, and that was in 1902, the year the Federation drought peaked. The Darling River all but ran dry at Bourke, in New South Wales, and the Australian wheat crop was all but lost. This time, many farmers are better placed than their forebears were a century ago. They have adjusted their farming practices to the fact of climate change as the country gets hotter and more extreme. The 20 warmest years on record have all come in the last 22 years, and our droughts only stand to get worse in a warmer world. It is most heartening, too, to see the National Farmers' Federation acknowledging the reality of climate change. As president Fiona Simson puts it, 'people on the land can't and won't ignore what is right before their eyes'. The attitude of farmers' representatives is not only welcome but has implications for policy, not just for agriculture but also for water and energy. Put simply, the lower the requirement for the energy sector to reduce emissions, the more has to be done by other parts of the economy—for example, agriculture—where the cost of action may be greater. And then there is water. Drought means even less water in the Murray-Darling system, and that means South Australia may once again suffer disproportionately. That is just one of the reasons the Senate deserves to be able to get to the bottom of what's really happening in the system, and that is why we must find a way to allow Commonwealth officials and advisers to appear before South Australia's Murray-Darling Basin royal commission. The more we know, the better people affected by drought now and in the future will be able to act to ensure the impact on their lives and incomes can be managed. Prevention is always better than cure. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247871 The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 73 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 1 of 2018-19 73 Consideration 73 16:44 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is a fascinating and very important document. These are supposed to be, we're told, the cashless welfare card trials—they're supposed to be trials—where they are supposed to test the concept. If you look at the conclusions of the report—and I'll come back to the rest of them shortly—one of them is, at the end: Aspects of the proposed wider roll-out of the CDC were informed by learnings from the trial— That's what's supposed to be happening— but the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the CDC and there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation. I hate to say it, but the conclusions of the report around the cashless welfare card actually confirm what we, the Greens, have been saying in this place ever since the government came up with this foolish scheme: that it would hurt the people that were put on the card. And in fact that is the case. But the government was so ideologically driven on that that when they set up the evaluation process they did not even look at whether the card would have a detrimental impact on the participants in the trials. The conclusions start with: The Department of Social Services largely established appropriate arrangements to implement the Cashless Debit Card Trial, however, its approach to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate. As a consequence, it is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach. It also talks about how the department: …did not actively monitor risks identified in risk plans and there were deficiencies in elements of the procurement processes. Arrangements to monitor and evaluate the trial were in place although key activities were not undertaken or fully effective, and the level of unrestricted cash available in the community was not effectively monitored. It goes on to say: Social Services established relevant and mostly reliable key performance indicators, but they did not cover some operational aspects of the trial such as efficiency, including cost. There was a lack of robustness in data collection and the department's evaluation did not make use of all available administrative data to measure the impact of the trial including any change in social harm. In other words, the government never set out to measure what impact the trial had or to effectively evaluate this trial and look at any social harm. We know from talking to people up there that there was social harm. We know from the limited evaluation that academic after academic has pointed out the flaws in their evaluation process and methodology, the whole process; yet the government goes blindly on. It has extended the cashless welfare card to Kalgoorlie and still plans to and thinks it's very shortly going to roll out the next trial in the Hinkler region in Queensland. This is based purely on ideology, because the Auditor-General's report shows very clearly that there is not the data there. The evaluation does not support the further rollout of the card. In fact it was never set up, if you recall what I've just said around scalability of the CDC, and there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation. The government's approach was not to further evaluate the ongoing trials. However, they have now, subsequently, put in some further evaluation process. But they never put in place the process to actually enable proper evaluation of the cashless welfare card, because they just think taking the punitive top-down approach will lead to better outcomes. What it is really about is income management—that's very clear. The cashless welfare card is further income management, and they have an ideological belief that income management will work. They've now had over 11 years worth of 'trialling' that in the Northern Territory, but of course the evaluation of that showed that it met none of its objectives. The ANAO report has further highlighted the flawed approach this government's taking. The minister representing the Minister for Social Services was in here lauding their approach to welfare today. 16:49 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to also speak to the Auditor-General's report and concur very much with my colleague Senator Siewert's remarks. I want to take the opportunity to note and acknowledge her tireless advocacy in pointing out the innate and inevitable flaws in income management for over 10 years. As she said, income management was first introduced into the Northern Territory as part of the so-called emergency response by the Howard government—unfortunately, with support from the then Labor opposition—an approach that Labor then continued in a modified form when they were in government. There is one comment that Senator Siewert made, though, that I may not be able to agree with. She stated that this government has the ideological view that this top-down approach will automatically lead to better outcomes. I'm not actually convinced that they do think that it will lead to better outcomes. Senator Siewert e5z I'll accept that! Senator BARTLETT DT6 Thank you! This report is one of the reasons why. The government set up a trial but set it up, as the Auditor-General's report said, in a way where it was not even designed to test scalability—whether or not it would work if you ramped it up further. This report has shown that their own assessment processes of the trial are completely inadequate. It makes me think that this is solely about the politics of punishing the poor and—what I hope is also a mistaken belief on the part of the government—that somehow there are votes in that. I'm not convinced that there are. People are wising up to the fact that continually kicking unemployed people, pensioners, carers and sole parents isn't going to keep delivering votes. The other reason why this government doesn't really care about whether or not the trial is going to work in reducing harm in the community is what we've seen in the approach this year, when the Senate rejected the proposal to extend this trial into the Hinkler electorate in my own state of Queensland. This government immediately bowled up legislation to try and force that through. They then sent it to a Senate committee. Did those government senators go to the community and hear from the community directly about what their concerns were and why they believed it wouldn't work? The government held, frankly, what was a pretty derisory phone link-up with people on the other side of the country, packing three or four witnesses into a 30-minute timeslot. You couldn't get a clearer demonstration of their contempt for the local community, and I'd like to acknowledge the community's work in trying to get their views heard. I went to Hervey Bay with Senator Siewert last year, before I ended up back in this place, to attend a meeting. The local people there, many of whom are on social security payments and on low incomes by definition, are working very hard to have their concerns put forward. That includes plenty of people who won't be directly affected but who know the damage that that does to a local community. They know how harmful the deliberate stigmatising of people on social security payments is. I had the inspiring experience, again just a few weeks ago, to go to meetings in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. We had over 50 people at the meeting in Bundaberg on a Monday night. They were people from a range of different backgrounds and walks of life, and they had a lot of experience working in the community with people with substance abuse and gambling issues. They put forward all sorts of reasons why this won't work, but no government senators were there to listen. To those senators on the crossbench who will be the deciding voices on whether or not to put through this punitive measure to punish people in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg: take the opportunity not to do this to the people in that part of Queensland when the government couldn't even be bothered to turn up there and listen. There was a very good submission by the mayor of Hervey Bay, George Seymour, a person with a background in working with young people and other disadvantaged people. He not only said why it wouldn't work but talked about how it would stigmatise his entire community unfairly and unnecessarily, purely for political point scoring purposes, by punishing the poor. The fact that this government has refused to listen is evidenced by this Auditor-General's report and by their own behaviour in the Senate committee inquiry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS President's report on government responses to parliamentary committee reports 75 Consideration 75 16:55 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I bring this document to the attention of the Senate to highlight another example of this government showing contempt for the community, and, I might say, contempt for Senate committee processes as well. This Senate long ago indicated a view that has been held across a range of governments since 1973. The Senate declared its opinion that the government should provide a response to committee reports within three months of their tabling. I accept there are a lot more committee reports now than there were back in 1973, but, as this report shows, we're not just talking about the government taking six or even nine months to respond to things. Once again, in this report we've got a whole heap of examples of committee reports going back four, five and six years. There are a whole range of them that go back more than three years. There is a report on the impact of mining in the Murray-Darling Basin that is nine years old. There are a couple of record breakers here. One looking at issues relating to staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act that was tabled in 2003 still not been responded to. The winner is a certain maritime incident report, a committee that I was part of a very long time ago. It's report was tabled on 23 October 2002. It still has not been responded to. This, of course, goes across the six-year period when Labor was in government. I'm not in any way suggesting that a government response to a committee report is the only part of the process that matters and that the whole thing is a waste of time otherwise. There are a whole range of ways that Senate committee inquiries inform public debate, and they inform government action in other areas. Nonetheless, to not even provide the basic recognition of giving a final formal response to a Senate committee inquiry, some of which are quite comprehensive, does show a complete lack of respect and a total contempt for the community and all the people who put in the submissions, turned up at public hearings and encouraged others to participate in the inquiry, and some of these inquiries are on issues that are just as current today. The Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into factors affecting the supply of health services and medical professionals in rural areas was tabled six years ago next week. We could hold a bit of a birthday party for it! That will be its sixth anniversary without a formal response, but those issues are still very current and are the subject of very significant concern and campaigning in Queensland, for example, at the moment, with the withdrawal of maternity services in regional and rural areas. This is just another example of an approach from government where the community doesn't matter. The government just do it all themselves according to their own interests and the interests of their donors and backers. When it gets to a situation where you have such continual lack of response to committee reports, it's not surprising that we see such a growing amount of disillusionment in the community towards the political process itself and a feeling that there is no point contributing to the political process, because governments don't listen. This is a clear example and demonstration of the ways in which they are not listening. I should, just in case people think I'm being negative, point out that there have been some responses since the last time this document was tabled. It's tabled every six months. There's been some action, some movement, in response to a report in 2011 on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is good to see, and a response to a 2015 report on housing affordability finally appearing. So there is some movement there, but it really is an inadequate response from government of both persuasions and another reminder of why we need such a major overhaul of our political system. It is another example of how our politics is broken and another example of why the community needs to look for alternatives to the tired-out approach of the parties of the political establishment. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 76 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 76 17:00 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I've been very fortunate in my life. Being a senator with the opportunities it presents to work with communities for social justice, genuine democracy and the environment has been a huge privilege. I thank the workers in this building: the cleaners, the grounds people, committee staff, security, IT workers, librarians, COMCAR drivers, catering staff, attendants and all the other staff who make this mini-city hum on parliamentary sitting days and keep it going 24/7. And I thank the Senate Clerk, Richard Pye, and his staff, the head attendant, John Brown, and all the attendants. Your ability to second-guess our needs is one of the wonders of this place. While I continue to feel like a political outlier when I am in parliament, it's my engagement with workers and staff here that makes me feel more at home. I also thank all Greens senators and Adam Bandt, our lone voice in the House of Representatives. I look forward to when Adam has some Greens company in the House, and I'm sure it's coming. My appreciation of Greens members and supporters has no bounds. Through good times and the not so good, you have been a rock and one of the joys is working with you and enjoying how you burst the insular Canberra bubble. I thank all my staff and those I have worked with in the past. I leave this job after years of working with the wonderful Helen Bergen, Brigitte Garozzo, Rebecca Semaan, Bjorn Wallin, Alana West and Linda Wilhelm. I've appreciated your hard work and support and sharing the political achievements and setbacks of this job. My biggest thanks go to my family. 'Support' is an inadequate word to encompass the loving, entertaining, irreverent solidarity, plus the dose of helpful critical feedback I've received from them. To my children and grandchildren, Jaya, Mimi, Rocco, Kirra and Jack, we're always there for each other and always will be. As we know so well, politics can turn nasty. Yes, for us as MPs, it can be tough, but for families and loved ones it can be particularly hard. They feel the pain and see through the lies, but they do not have the ready means to make their views public. I want to acknowledge what my family has been through. My first visit to federal parliament was 50 years ago. It was 1968. The Vietnam War was raging and the Paris peace talks had stalled. With a group of high school friends, we organised a protest under the slogan 'Paris must mean peace'. We collected names on our petition, lobbied for support from prominent individuals and organisations and decided to demonstrate outside the US embassy and meet leading opponents of the war, Dr Jim Cairns and Tom Uren. The Hansard for 16 May 1968 shows that some conservative MPs speaking in the House of Representatives misrepresented our motives as 'communist inspired'. This was despite the broad support from Reverend Ted Noffs; Reverend Alan Walker; Ken Thomas, the founder of the Liberal Reform Group; and a number of unions. Yes, the parents of a few of us were in the Communist Party, but so what? The attacks then are not dissimilar to what I and sections of the Greens experience today. As a 16 year old, the lessons I learnt in 1968 have stuck with me: organise, involve people in the campaign, build allies and don't be put off by bullying, insults, and McCarthyist tactics of right-wing politicians and the media. The Cold War-type casting of my recent work has confused some politicians, who have said to me that I don't fit what they expected. This has resulted in some interesting comments. I participate in the AFL and NRL parliamentary tipping competitions, and have even won. A Liberal senator inquired once about my success, adding that he had discussed this with his colleagues as they could not understand it. The clear subtext was: 'We don't get it. You are a Green, you are a woman and you are Lee Rhiannon. How did you win a footy tipping competition?' If a valedictory speech is supposed to be about one's successes, I would include in that list taking some small steps to break down the stereotyping of me and other Greens. I spoke earlier of feeling like an outlier. For me, parliament had been a place where we went to protest, not to get a job. Parliament has been an institution of the state and big business and too often responsible for inequality, discrimination and environmental destruction. But, at the same time, parliament is meant to be democratic, and democracy is something I am deeply committed to. So what was I supposed to do in this job? My actions started on day one in the New South Wales upper house. I am the first New South Wales state MP not to take the title 'honourable', and I am proud to be the first Greens New South Wales female MP. For me, becoming an MP was an opportunity to help expose the excessive privileges that go with this job and shake up the comfort zone that cross-party deals had delivered for too long. The Greens' commitment was to stand with the people, not put ourselves above them. This meant exposing two-party deals over entitlements. The abuse I copped in the chamber over this was intense but it was our work on corporate political donations that really pushed the anger of MPs of both major parties off the Richter scale. This was in the 2000s, when, in some years, developer donations to Labor exceeded the money they received from unions. Reading out the amounts of developer contributions to parties and MPs resulted in colourful exchanges, although the more accurate descriptor is 'extreme abuse'. The Greens' 'Democracy for Sale' campaign, based on a user-friendly searchable website, gave the public and journalists the tools they needed. The scandals cascaded into the media, and I am proud of the role my office and the Greens played in exposing the massive conflict of interest that parties create when they accept large corporate donations. In 2002, to much ridicule from major party MPs, I introduced the end developer donations bill. By 2009 Labor buckled and introduced the ban. Other electoral funding reforms that the Greens had championed followed. I do not detract from the seriousness of the recent misogynist remarks made in this chamber but, for me, the behaviour in this parliament has been mild compared to my time in the New South Wales parliament. The abuse was directed not just at me but also at my parents, and two offensive speeches were made about the valuable political campaigning of one of my children. It is disappointing that, at a federal level, we still do not have a national corruption watchdog. I know my federal Greens colleagues are passionate to continue the campaigns for a national ICAC and for lobbying and political donation reform. Another consistent theme of the Greens' work, and one that I have endeavoured to build into my work in parliament and with communities across the country, is active opposition to the sell-off of public assets. The interest in our publication, Sold Off, Sold Out, reflects growing public support to renationalise and revitalise public services that have been privatised. I will continue to be involved in these endeavours when I leave this job. This work highlights why we need a party to the left of Labor. First off, a comment on the coalition: I don't think there'd be anyone here who would doubt my hostility to the ideology of the coalition, even though I have enjoyed working with some individual coalition members on committees. But dealing with the Labor Party has presented a dilemma for the Left in this country for over a century. Here we have a social democratic party that has too often embraced neoliberalism and acted in the interests of big capital. Labor has played a major role in the privatisation of precious public assets. Yet history shows us that Labor in opposition is a different beast from the party that forms government. This is an enormous tactical challenge for the Greens and the broader left. That's a subject for another time, but for now I did want to share with you a comment from a chatty New South Wales Labor right MP. He said: 'We need Labor left. How else could we mobilise socialists and the left to vote for Labor and elect right-wingers?' Naturally, as an advocate for the public sector, I am deeply committed to public education. In the 1999 New South Wales state election, when I was elected to the New South Wales upper house, the Greens ran our first public education election campaign. We called for the redirection of funding away from the rich private schools to public schools. I know the Greens' campaign helped revitalise this demand across the public education sector. Our commitment to righting the wrong decisions of successive coalition and Labor governments on public schools, TAFEs and universities is a constant of our work and of our election campaigns. In recent months the level of deception that the Turnbull government engaged in during the debate over their 2017 school funding bill has become more apparent. The Greens were right to vote against the government's plans—the so-called Gonski 2.0—that benefited private schools and will mean nearly nine in 10 public schools will not receive enough funding to meet the needs of each student by 2023. I pay tribute to John Kaye, who died in 2016. He was a great Greens New South Wales state MP. John was a public intellectual whose insights and campaign initiatives built broad support for the Greens and for our stance on public education and our pioneering work on climate change for 100 per cent renewables. John's death has been a huge loss. He was not just a colleague; he was a very valued friend. I picked up the housing portfolio after the 2016 election, and I feel very fortunate that that happened. At the moment we're putting the finishing touches to the Greens' universal social housing initiative. This plan is much more than an attempt to make the housing market less brutal; it radically redefines what it means for housing to be a human right. My heart goes out to the many communities affected by the PFAS contamination. It is a huge, unresolved issue. We have been successful in setting up inquiries, but what the impacted locals and workers need is compensation to help rebuild their lives. Building strong relationships with the Palestinian community has been a significant aspect of my work. My visits to Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan and my work in parliament have provided the opportunity to challenge the dominant narrative and shed some light on the reality facing the people and the region. I look forward to continuing this work. What I have loved about my parliamentary work is the opportunity to work with so many people. That is the essence of my politics—to engage with people with the hope that they will become active for the public good. It is a key part of our democracy. We have tabled private members' bills to end the live export trade and the testing of cosmetics on animals. While I'm proud of this work in parliament, it is the strength of public opinion and public actions that will end the cruel treatment of animals. The 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget provoked resistance amongst so many communities. Our website whatwillmydegreecost highlighted that the result would have been $100,000 degrees. Working with the National Tertiary Education Union, the National Union of Students, Labor and a number of crossbenchers, we defeated the higher education cuts. Twice in this chamber, that shocking bill was voted down. My work with union members has been a delight, and I highly recommend this to help an MP stay grounded. From the solid support of the Meat Workers Union for our end live export bill, backing MUA actions to save jobs, campaigning with the CFMEU against the Australian Building and Construction Commission, working with education unions on funding issues and backing the ACTU's Change the Rules! campaign, the Greens recognise the vital progressive role that unions play. Sometimes our solidarity with unions raises issues with our allies. A few years back I joined striking coalminers at an Xstrata mine in the Hunter. I was quizzed later on how we could do that if we back an end to the coal industry. Easily. Mine workers and the environment are both exploited, and we need to campaign with coalminers when they fight for decent wages and conditions. At the same time, we work for a just transition to ensure mine workers and mining-dependent communities are not left stranded as the world turns its back on coal. One of the highlights of my time here has been committee and estimates work, and being a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In 2015, all parties agreed to the JSCEM report recommending amendments to the Electoral Act that would end undemocratic Senate group voting tickets and leave it up to the voters to determine their own preferences. However, when the legislation came on for debate, Labor backflipped and ran a dirty campaign to make out that we were working with the Liberals out of self-interest. The many Labor voices in this debate conveniently forgot that they had previously backed the reforms at a federal level and in the New South Wales parliament. If Labor believed the lies they peddled about Senate voting reform, they would have promised to reverse the changes we voted in. No such commitment has been given. Those reforms stand, and they're important. What is the future of the Greens? I believe it can be long and fruitful, but the challenges that all progressive parliamentary parties face are upon us. We need to remain a progressive, democratic party of the left. That means resisting careerism, hierarchical control, bullying behaviour and the associated leaking and backgrounding. If we fail to stand up to that sort of behaviour, not only will the Greens suffer setbacks but our contributions to building social movements will be reduced, we will lose members and individual members will be hurt. We need to engage constructively with the great progressive causes of our time. The future of a liveable planet depends on it. It is inspiring to see that, around the world, social movements for transformative, emancipatory change are on the rise. Thanks to a poll taken by the Centre for Independent Studies, we can quantify this interest in Australia. The poll found 58 per cent of surveyed Australian millennials are favourable to socialism, and 59 per cent agreed with the statement that 'Capitalism has failed, and government should exercise more control of the economy.' The Greens can take heart from these trends. There are two people I wish to pay tribute to. In 1990, Geoff Ash asked me to join the Greens. I remember he put a good case, but what won me over were our four pillars—our principles that guide our policies and actions. A few years later, in 1993, we started going out, and this year is our 25th anniversary. I wish to thank him for his support, love and acceptance. Geoff has been active in the Greens for longer than I have. Some might say it was a bad move for him being my partner; the abuse and misrepresentation that has come my way for no good reason has sometimes rained down on him. His years of volunteer work for a progressive, democratic Greens have made a huge difference. I also wish to thank Jack Mundey. The green bans movement, which Jack led, helped give the Greens our name. The green bans style of radical work, supporting grassroots initiatives, building broad alliances and taking direct action, continues to serve as a great model for the mass campaigns we now need to build and win. It was thanks to a CFMEU green ban and a massive community campaign that we saved the iconic Bondi Pavilion from a Liberal-planned privatisation. We had a similar battle in 1987 and a repeat in 2017, and we won on both occasions. To Jack and all the BLs, although our workplaces are worlds apart, your political style and approach has been with me every day as a Greens MP. I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues who have joined us today. I know it's a long way to travel. Particular thanks to Kerry Nettle, a former senator of this place, and David Shoebridge, a Greens MP in the New South Wales parliament. Before I came into parliament, I believed that people working together are the drivers of progressive change. Our history illustrates this truth. Winning the right to vote for Indigenous people and for women, withdrawing our troops from Vietnam, ending apartheid in South Africa, securing decent employment conditions, saving the Franklin River and, most recently, the marriage equality victory and so much more testify to this truth. The streets are where the action is. I've been privileged to be a member of two parliaments. I'm leaving parliament, but I'm not leaving politics. I look forward to returning to the streets. Thank you very much to all my colleagues in this place. 17:24 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria On behalf of all of my Greens colleagues, I would like to thank Senator Lee Rhiannon for over 50 years of service not just to the Greens but, indeed, to the country. She's been around for more than 50 years in Australian politics, which says less about Lee's age and much more about how much of her life she's dedicated to important political causes. From a young age, Lee was an activist. She's been a significant figure in Australia's women, peace, environmental and social movements. As a teenager, she formed the group High School Students Against the Vietnam War. She was involved in the anti-apartheid movement, the Union of Australian Women and Women's Action Against Global Violence. Lee was the founder of two key Australian activist organisations: Coalition for Gun Control and Aid/Watch. The list goes on. Most of us in this chamber would be aware—both through our own involvement and perhaps through some of our colleagues in New South Wales—of Lee's tireless work to promote participatory democracy and political transparency. She's a large part of the reason we've seen political donations reform in New South Wales. She has fought hard to stamp out corruption in New South Wales through an Independent Commission Against Corruption, amongst other things. And, while we might not have one here in the federal parliament just yet, it's only a matter of time. That hard work, done through the New South Wales parliament and now here through our federal parliament, will take us much, much closer to the goal of more transparency in this place. Throughout her time in the parliament, and in her political career more broadly, Lee has maintained an approach to democracy that brings people together to collectively work on issues to achieve change. She was a huge part of the campaign to protect our universities from those vicious cuts from the former Abbott government and to safeguard workers' rights against WorkChoices. She has used parliament as a platform to give a voice to communities right across the country who want someone to stand up for them in this parliament and who want someone to stand up and fight against the oppression that's occurring not just here in Australia but right around the world. We've been having a debate today on live animal exports. I know Lee Rhiannon has contributed to that debate, but Lee was campaigning for an end to the live animal export trade long before this issue was discussed in this parliament. She's been campaigning on it not just for the last few months but for many, many years. I've got no doubt that the time will come when we will see an end to that cruel and barbaric trade, and, while Lee might not be in this place, she will know that her work has made a significant contribution to that important change. Lee has also smashed a few stereotypes and bruised a few egos around this place. She mentioned the AFL footy tipping. Well, I've got to tell you, there are a few people around here who think they know a thing or two about football and the NRL, but Lee has shown them up by consistently either winning or nearly winning all of the parliamentary footy tipping competitions. We also shouldn't forget that she famously beat former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the Cole Classic, a two kilometre stretch of ocean swimming held at Manly Beach. To boot, I've never seen Lee, unlike the former Prime Minister, running around Aussies Cafe in a pair of red budgie smugglers. In closing, Lee, for someone who never thought they'd see themselves as a member of parliament, your achievements have been significant. You've made a great contribution to the nation, to political activism and to the issues which form the basis of our political movement. You mentioned the four pillars in your speech. Your commitment to the four pillars—ecological sustainability, social and economic justice, peace and non-violence and, of course, democracy—has been a remarkable one. See you in the streets! 17:28 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On behalf of the government, I extend best wishes from all members of the coalition parties to Senator Rhiannon. Senator Rhiannon, as acknowledged in her valedictory remarks, has a distinctly different world outlook from members of the coalition parties and has a very different ideological perspective. There've been only few and far occasions upon which we've all voted together. Nonetheless, I think I speak for all members of the coalition when I say that we respect the sincerity with which Senator Rhiannon holds her views and we appreciate the way in which she goes about her work and her advocacy for the views and the causes that she holds dear. We particularly acknowledge the kindness, the regard and the consideration that Lee has shown in dealings with members of the coalition parties and indeed with all senators and members, especially through the different committee duties upon which there have been shared assignments. Whilst Lee and I have been in the Senate together for seven years, I think it was probably during a brief spell of being on JSCEM together, reviewing the conduct of the 2010 election, that I was best able to see, in the early days of her service in the Senate, her approach of regard, consultation, cooperation and seeking to advance issues as best we possibly can, when and where there is agreement. On behalf of the government and the coalition parties, I thank her for her service to the Parliament of Australia, to the Senate and, in a previous life, to the New South Wales parliament. We extend our best wishes and thanks to Lee's family and friends for their giving of her to serve in these places and to undertake public life, and we wish you, Senator Rhiannon, many, many happy years of continued but hopefully not too successful campaigning in the future! 17:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Welcome to all of Senator Rhiannon's family and friends who have come to join her today. It's terrific to see you all here. Senator Birmingham did wonder, Senator Rhiannon, whether your reference to a Labor figure who wanted to gather in all those left-wing votes so that right-wingers could be elected to parliament was a reference to me, but I can assure him—and I'm sure you can verify this—it wasn't me. I think I know who did make that statement, and he featured prominently in the New South Wales newspapers last weekend. No? All right. It must have been somebody else. Senator Rhiannon interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I've got the state right, anyway. It gives me very great pleasure, on behalf of the opposition, to speak on your valedictory today. Your contributions to this place, Senator Rhiannon, are many. In reflecting on your farewell to this place, I look to the words that you delivered when you were first welcomed here. In your first speech, you said: History demonstrates that, while parliaments make the laws, people are the driving force for social change. I believe one of the great strengths of the Greens is our constructive parliamentary work, combined with our commitment to amplify in this place the voice of progressive people's movements. I am passionate about working with people—helping to improve their everyday lives, learning about their good experiences and how they cope with tough times. In this chamber, while there is a divide on some fundamental issues critical to the future of the planet, I still believe that our shared humanity means that on many causes—often more than we realise—we do agree. I look forward to working with all senators to find common ground wherever we can. I have to admit, Senator Rhiannon, that, on social issues and foreign policies, I suspect there wouldn't be much that we would find to agree upon. But the fact of the matter is you came to this place with a clear set of principles, a set of guiding values and an unwavering commitment to improve Australia's democratic institutions, and for that the Labor Party salutes you. You were focused on achieving real outcomes for people you represented and indeed those that you did not. Your commitment to your own personal guiding principles was demonstrated in the recent schools funding debate, which ultimately saw you suspended for a time from the Greens party room. In your own words, Senator Rhiannon, you came to this place committed to 'working with all senators to find common ground wherever we can'. In my personal experience, that's exactly what you have done, and you've done it through a real and considered dialogue, talking and listening to the often divergent views that exist in this place and within the communities we represent. In my capacity as the shadow special minister of state, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to you for your work on the important issues, particularly in relation to political donations. While we've not always agreed on some of the issues that you have raised, your engagement in this has been an important part of the reform, and I'm very hopeful that in the weeks and months ahead the work that you have particularly done in JSCEM on the most recent government bill in respect of political donations comes to fruition and that in this country we finally ban foreign donations from our political process. When that happens, you will be able to take credit for that change, because you've contributed significantly to it. Now, I want to talk a bit about your early life. I'm sure that the young and determined activist who first visited Canberra, aged 16, would never have dreamed that she would be standing in this place 43 years later to deliver her first speech as a Greens senator. Indeed, on that visit to the nation's parliament, as a teenager, I'm sure you could not have imagined what you would have achieved and what you would be leaving us with today. Of course, your contribution in this place does not define your contribution to the people of New South Wales or, indeed, the nation. Prior to joining the Senate in 2010, you served as a Greens member in the Legislative Council of New South Wales parliament. In the New South Wales parliament you led campaigns concerned with electoral funding reform, environmental protection, improvements to public transport, the protection of workers' rights, the promotion of animal rights and better funding for public schools. These were causes that saw you continue your activism and advocacy upon your election to the Senate in 2010. You've experienced a life framed by political activism, ever since before you were elected to the New South Wales parliament. Your youth and upbringing had many similarities to my own, albeit with a slightly different ambition. Family influences saw the beginnings of political activism and you have never known a life not imbued with the values of left-wing political activism. Born in 1951 in Sydney, you grew up as the only child of what you described as a communist family, where the driving concerns were working for a more equitable and peaceful world. Your parents, Bill and Freda, were members of the Communist Party of Australia, the CPA, including as members of the central committee, but they resigned from the CPA in 1972 and joined the then Soviet-aligned Socialist Party. While your youth instilled in you a drive to defend the virtues of communism, my youth instilled in me the commitment to end it. Over time, in my second period in the Senate, we've had long discussions, you may recall, about the postwar conflict between communism and anticommunism. I have to confess, I have failed to convince you of the merits of the anti-communist cause, but they were terrific discussions. Some people stick with their lifelong principles. Your political principles eventually brought you to Canberra and a seat in parliament. Your contributions in this place are many. You have been a formidable voice, most recently holding the important role of the Greens spokesman on housing, animal welfare, industry, democracy, gun control and local government. You have been a fierce advocate for change. During your time in the Senate, you have introduced 16 private senator's bills, addressing issues from reforming democracy to animal welfare. This breadth and depth of legislative reform is impressive, and so too is your contribution to the adjournment debate. In total, you have made 134 contributions on adjournments over the course of your career. These contributions demonstrate your passion and desire to give a voice to many issues, ranging from complex foreign policy matters to social housing in Sydney. In particular, you have been a specialist in utilising the previous 20-minute time limit on Tuesday nights to make speeches covering a wide variety of subjects. I'm sure that your valedictory will not be the last we hear from you and that you'll continue to make a wide variety of contributions to public debate outside this place. When you announced your resignation from this place—and I think you referred to this earlier in your own speech—it was a sign of the technological advancements during your career that you did it via a live Facebook video. You warmly declared that you were not resigning from politics and that your political life is to continue. I've no doubt that your contribution to political debate will not end with your departure from this place. Your determination to drive change, your kindness and your willingness to engage across the political divide and to do so with a smile will be missed. On behalf of the opposition, I wish you all the very best for the future. 17:40 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I'll be very brief. I just want to follow up something that the Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, said this evening, and that is that when that foul and cruel and disgusting export of live sheep ends in this country—and it will—Lee Rhiannon will be remembered for her part in it. I've loved working with her on that issue. Like night follows day, as I think Andrew Peacock said, it will happen. Senator Rhiannon, I pledge to you that, the day it goes, you will be remembered. Thank you. 17:41 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I rise on behalf of the Nationals to acknowledge the service of Senator Lee Rhiannon. Senator Rhiannon is known for her passion and commitment to what she believes in. In fact, Lee will remember a number of occasions when I was trying to chide my mates opposite gently that at least the Greens have a position; they stick to it; I understand it, and I respect that. Senator, we have appreciated your honesty, your hard work and your sharp ability in a debate, and I'm sure that the Greens will miss your fighting spirit. We know that you've never been one to shy away from a debate. I'm not sure what Senator Farrell was thinking when he was trying to convince you otherwise. I certainly haven't tried to encourage you to take up gun ownership; I've invested in conversations about far more pleasant things. But, as Senator Farrell indicated, I think part of your legacy really was in part of your first speech. You said you looked forward to working with all senators to find some common ground on something, and I think that's been your legacy, Lee. I really think that your legacy will reflect that particular contribution. Lee, many may be surprised but perhaps not yourself that we have a lot in common, especially in our early education. We both studied and we're very keen on environmental sciences, botany and biology. My love of the natural environment took me to the Northern Territory, where I seem to spend most of my time killing it, but that was a different approach to life about a various skill set! Whilst my— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator SCULLION 00AOM I do acknowledge that the passion and the commitment to the environment have never been away from your whole career. That's been one of the absolute fundamentals in every debate. I've very much enjoyed talking to you, and I've very much enjoyed listening to the way that you've managed to present the values of the environment, including the very practical way of saying that we can't protect something if we don't value it and having a look at those values from different perspectives. So thank you for that. I know that many people have appreciated it. We often acknowledge in this place the senator who stands in that particular seat or that particular Senate electorate. I think it's useful at this stage to acknowledge the sacrifice and the support that your family, your friends and all your loved ones have provided you during your years of service. It is a job that takes us away from home and away from the normal parts of life. I'm sure that those in your life will appreciate the chance to see a bit more of you, Lee, and that you will enjoy that time that you're able to spend with the family, however short it is, because you're determined to keep going with politics. So make sure you do spend time with your family and your grandchildren. Senator Rhiannon, thank you for your service, and I wish you the best in your next dance in life. 17:44 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I think most of it has been said. Everyone has recognised the capacity you have brought to this place, Senator Rhiannon. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned, or only a little bit in that last contribution, was that you majored in zoology and botany. I think your zoology experience might have done you well in this place from time to time and, from what I can read in the papers, even more within the Greens party room from time to time. I want to thank you for all you have done for working-class people in this country. You and I have shared many picket lines together. We have been standing up for working people and I think your contribution has been absolutely fantastic. You did indicate that you were a political outlier from time to time. I think I have been a political outlier from time to time myself, but never quite as much as you. I never get barred from my party room. That is something I don't think happens too much in here. But you did it because of your principles, because you stood for working people and their capacity to get an education. I think the contribution you have made is fantastic. You have indicated you want to spend more time with your children and grandchildren. That's a great thing. I'm pretty sure that the Rhiannon gene pool will continue and I'm sure there are many activists in your family on their way through. That's a good thing. I have listened to some of the debates in this place where you have come under merciless attack, in my view not for the proper reasons, from across the other side of the chamber. You've always stood firm for your principles and your values. I say again that some of the people who influenced you, like Jack Mundey, were terrific trade unionists. I hope that when you go the Greens maintain that understanding of the importance of the trade union movement in this country, because you certainly do. I hope they maintain their understanding that penalty rates are really important for working people; that without penalty rates some working families won't be able to put food on the table; that the conditions that have been fought for by the trade union movement over the years are important to fight for. We've had a wide-ranging debate here about the issues that you've been involved in, such as Palestine; your mother was awarded a special honour from the South African government for being anti-apartheid. Many of the things that you've stood for from your young political activism are now seen as the norm. From time to time that happens in political parties. Some of the issues that I stood for as a union official and fought with you are now seen as a political norm within my party. So you've got to be there, you've got to keep fighting and you've got to keep arguing. I look forward to continuing my friendship with you, because we've had a reasonable friendship even though we've disagreed on many political issues over that period of time. I think my political differences would probably be less than the differences you may have had with other members of the Labor Party. You've done a great job and you will be missed. Your determination to pursue Nigel Hadgkiss was something that you and I had in common. At least we got rid of that guy before we left, which was a good thing, and I thank you for your contribution to that. So for a progressive politician, for someone who spent your whole life looking after the working class in this country, I want to thank you for that. I want to place on record for my appreciation for the work you have done and for the sacrifices that your family have made over your long years of activism. It's not an easy job being in politics, especially when you are an outlier, as you were within your own party at times and in this parliament. Thanks for everything you've done. I'm sure that you will continue to be a political activist. I think the Greens are poorer for your departure—I definitely do—and I just hope the Greens don't go too far to the right or too far to the centre, without you being there to pull them back a bit to the left when they need it. Thank you. 17:50 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia In my short time in this place I have enjoyed working with Senator Rhiannon. I haven't always agreed with her positions, but she's put her case politely and forcefully. I admire the manner in which she has progressed the things that she cares about. I've also liked her approach to committee work and I have actually learnt something from her, and I'm grateful for that. On behalf of Centre Alliance, I thank you and I wish you well in the future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 That concludes the valedictory statements for Senator Rhiannon. DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Consideration 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 83 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 17:52 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table responses to questions taken on notice during question time on 27 June 2018 and 28 June 2018 asked by Senators McAllister, Cameron, Keneally and O'Neill. BILLS 83 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017 83

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017

Explanatory Memorandum 83 17:52 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017. COMMITTEES 83 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Electric Vehicles 83 Membership 83 17:53 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of the Senate Select Committee on Electric Vehicles. 17:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That Senator Griff be appointed as a participating member of the Senate Committee on Electric Vehicles. Question agreed to. BILLS 84 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018 84

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018

First Reading 84 17:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 84 17:54 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (POWERS, OFFENCES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2018 I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which contains a range of measures to improve and clarify Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements. This Government is committed to providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job, and ensuring Commonwealth laws are robust and effective. To that end, we keep our criminal justice framework under constant review—our agencies, policies, laws, and processes—to ensure that we have a regime in place that is well equipped for the job of tackling crime. This Bill contains a range of measures across Commonwealth Acts. I will address the key measures in the Bill in further detail. Amendment of the AFP Act Schedule 1 amends the functions of the Australian Federal Police contained in section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The amendments clarify the functions of the AFP to enable them to provide assistance and cooperation with international organisations and non-government organisations in relation to the provision of police services or police support services. The amendments also provide a definition of international organisation. The amendments will ensure the AFP is able to share information with a range of organisations, depending on the types of investigations on foot and the changing criminal threat environment. International partnerships allow the AFP to meet operational challenges and threats, and progress Australia's national interests. The AFP's core work across all crime types is becoming increasing global and, as a result, international cooperation is becoming more and more important to the AFP's operations. Custody notification amendments Schedule 2 of the Bill will amend the custody notification obligation in the Crimes Act. The amendments will clarify the timing of the requirement and ensure that investigating officials who intend to question an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before they begin their questioning. This amendment is necessary following a contrary interpretation of the obligation in an ACT Supreme Court case, which frustrated the intention of the custody notification requirement. The clarification is important for the ACT because the requirement in the Commonwealth Crimes Act applies to ACT offences. Schedule 2 will therefore put beyond doubt that an investigating official must notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before questioning an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander, giving full effect to a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This was always the original intention of the legislative requirement. Controlled operations disclosure offence Schedule 3 amends the controlled operation disclosure offence provisions contained in Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914. The amendments will mirror those amendments made to section 35P of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, which implemented all of the recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in his report on section 35P of the ASIO Act. These amendments will introduce new elements that must be proven before an ordinary citizen can be convicted of a disclosure offence. The amendments will create two separate offence regimes. One offence regime will apply to 'entrusted persons' or persons who came to the knowledge or into the possession of information about a controlled operation in their capacity as an entrusted person. A separate offence regime will apply to all other persons, or 'outsiders'. Under these new regimes, the disclosure of information made by members of the community, except those who received information in their capacity as an entrusted person, will only constitute an offence if the information will endanger the health or safety of a person or prejudice the effective conduct of a controlled operation. The amendments will also establish a defence of prior publication available only to persons who did not receive the relevant information in their capacity as an entrusted person. It is critical that law enforcement agencies have the tools and capabilities available to them to effectively combat the significant threat of organised crime in Australia and of serious and systemic corruption. The Government understands the importance of maintaining public awareness of, and confidence in, the activities of our law enforcement agencies. The decision to mirror the amendments to the ASIO Act further demonstrates our commitment to achieving the right balance between freedom of expression and our national security and law enforcement requirements. Increasing penalties for general dishonesty offences Schedule 4 of the Bill will amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalties for the general dishonesty offences from 5 years' imprisonment to 10 years' imprisonment. This will address inconsistencies across penalties for offences in the Criminal Code, which capture similar conduct. It will also give courts the ability to adequately sentence the full range of offending that can occur under the general dishonesty offences. As the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pointed out in evidence to the current Senate Committee inquiry into penalties for white collar crime, the general dishonesty offences in the Criminal Code cover fraudulent schemes, consisting of multiple instances of criminal activity. The current 5 year maximum term of imprisonment can be inadequate in these circumstances. This amendment will allow judges to sentence appropriately, while also retaining their discretion to impose lesser penalties for less serious conduct. Protecting vulnerable persons The Government remains committed to strengthening the protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses and complainants giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. To this end, the Bill will amend the existing non-publication offence in section 15YR of the Crimes Act to require that a person seeking leave from the court to publish matter that is likely to identify a vulnerable person must take reasonable steps to notify parties of the original proceeding (including the vulnerable person themselves) before making the application. This will ensure all interested parties have an opportunity to present submissions to inform the court's decision about whether to grant leave for material to be published, including on any trauma and reputational damage the vulnerable person may experience as a result. Personal information that may be relevant for fraud and corrupt conduct Schedule 7 of the Bill amends the Crimes Act 1914to authorise sharing personal information for tackling fraud and corruption against the Commonwealth. Schedule 7 of this Bill will bolster the Commonwealth's ability to combat fraud and corruption. The Commonwealth will be able to gather information from within the Commonwealth and more broadly (including from the private sector and State and Territory agencies) to reduce the amount of public money lost to, and the damage inflicted by, fraud and corruption. The measures will assist Commonwealth bodies to stamp down on corrupt officials and those who are seeking to defraud the Commonwealth. The amendments also protect privacy by limiting information sharing to circumstances that are necessary for an integrity purpose. This is similar to existing safeguards under the Privacy Act 1988. The amendments also enable guidelines on the operation of these measures to be made which require the approval of the Information Commissioner. These amendments do not impact on secrecy requirements in other legislation. By authorising rather than compelling information sharing for Commonwealth integrity purposes, the amendments do not adversely impact on how state and territory agencies or the private sector handle personal information. Spent convictions Schedule 8 of the Bill will amend the Commonwealth spent convictions regime under the Crimes Act 1914 to remove impediments that would prevent the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission of New South Wales from using spent convictions information to vet employees and investigate serious misconduct and corruption in particular circumstances. Removing these impediments is necessary to give full effect to exemptions under the New South Wales spent conviction regime, which was recently amended to allow the Commission to use spent convictions information pursuant to their functions. Conclusion Australia's criminal justice framework is both fair and strong. But it never serves to be complacent. Where opportunities arise to fine-tune aspects of our regime, we take these up. This Bill is another example of just that. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW REVIEW) BILL 2018 On 1 January 2011, the Australian Consumer Law commenced operation as Australia's first nation-wide consumer protection law. Well informed, confident consumers are a key element of a strong and efficient economy. The introduction of the Australian Consumer Law has been good for both consumers and business—consumers are more empowered, business compliance costs have reduced and there are fewer disputes. Indeed, the Australian Consumer Law has been an important microeconomic reform that has provided substantial benefit to all Australians. To ensure that the Australian Consumer Law continues to deliver, the Australian Consumer Law Review identified opportunities for reform and areas where the law can be clarified and strengthened. This Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law, contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the consumer protection provisions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, to implement a series of recommendations made in the final report of the Australian Consumer Law Review. Schedule 1 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to ease evidentiary requirements for private litigants through expanded 'follow on' provisions, enabling litigants to rely on admitted facts from earlier proceedings. This will improve and enhance access to remedies and promote consistency with comparable 'follow on' provisions in the competition law. Schedule 2 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to extend the Australian Consumer Law and ASIC Act's unconscionable conduct protections to publicly listed companies. The existing exclusion sought to confine the unconscionable conduct protections to those traders likely to lack the size and bargaining power to protect their own interests. Public listing was seen as a reasonable indicator of a trader's size and ability to protect its own interests. However, public listing is not necessarily a reflection of a trader's size, level of resourcing or its ability to withstand unconscionable conduct. Where there is a significant imbalance in bargaining power, a publicly listed company could find itself subjected to conduct that is unconscionable. The amendments improve both the clarity and generic application of the unconscionable conduct protections and ensure they apply equally to all traders and support the Australian Consumer Law's objective of fostering effective competition and fair trading. Schedule 3 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to amend the definition of 'unsolicited services' to allow the protections of the false billing provisions to apply to false bills for services not provided. Current interpretations of the false billing provisions make it difficult to enforce against suppliers of unrequested and unsupplied services, even where the supplier has falsely represented that they have supplied services to the recipient. This amendment remedies this issue. Schedule 4 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to ensure that the unsolicited selling provisions operate as intended by clarifying that the provisions can apply to public places. Schedule 5 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to enhance price transparency in online shopping by requiring that any additional fees or charges associated with pre-selected options are included in the headline price. This amendment ensures that consumers are made aware from the start of the online payment process of the total possible amount they would pay if they do not opt out of pre-selected options. The amendment also reduces the potential for consumers to be misled. Schedule 6 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to strengthen the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers to obtain information about product safety, by broadening the power to apply to third parties likely to have relevant information, rather than only the supplier. This amendment will help regulators to respond to product safety issues in a more timely manner and promote consistency between the ACCC's compulsory information gathering powers for product safety investigations and its existing powers for enforcing other Australian Consumer Law provisions. Schedule 7 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act to enable regulators to use their existing investigative powers to better assess whether or not a term of a standard form contract is unfair. Currently, the ACCC and ASIC are restricted in their ability to investigate compliance and take enforcement action with respect to unfair contract terms. This is because their investigative powers are triggered by 'contraventions' or 'possible contraventions' of the law. However, as the use of unfair contract terms is not prohibited by the law, it is not possible to breach or contravene these provisions. These amendments extend the ACCC and ASIC's respective investigative powers to enable those regulators to undertake investigations to determine if a term in a contract may be unfair. Schedule 8 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to allow third parties to give effect to a community service order where the trader in breach is not qualified or trusted to do so. The Australian Consumer Law allows regulators to apply to a court for community service orders as a remedy for breaches. These orders typically require a positive action by a trader to perform a service. However, there may be circumstances where the trader is not qualified or trusted to perform the specified service. For example, it would be inappropriate for a trader who has caused financial harm to low income or vulnerable consumers to provide financial counselling to those consumers. This amendment will allow regulators to seek community services orders as a remedy to a breach in more circumstances because they will no longer have to rely on the trader to carry out the order but instead can rely on a qualified third party. Schedule 9 to this Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the scope of an existing exemption from the consumer guarantees regime for the transport or storage of goods where those goods are damaged or lost in transit. This amendment means that individual consumers will no longer bear the full risk in circumstances where they have no control over who ships their goods to them. The amendment also ensures that consumers do not have to rely on traders to raise issues with the shipper, they are instead able to use their rights to seek a remedy directly from the shipper. Schedule 10 amends the ASIC Act to address inconsistent terminology in relation to the sale or grant of land. These amendments will make terminology more consistent throughout the ASIC Act. Schedule 11 amends the ASIC Act to clarify that all Australian Consumer Law related consumer protections that already apply to financial services also apply to financial products. The current provisions explicitly cover financial services and indirectly apply to conduct related to financial products. This is because financial services has a broad definition. However, the absence of an express reference to financial products creates uncertainty. This amendment provides clarity that a financial product is a financial service. These amendments, taken together, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's consumer protection regime. They strengthen and clarify the law to ensure that consumers are well-informed, and will help consumers and traders to better understand their rights and obligations and improve outcomes across Australian markets. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the Bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Water Amendment Bill 2018, Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018, Corporations (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018, National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018, Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018, Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018, Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018, Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018, Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018, Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2018, Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018, Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018, National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018, National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2018, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018, Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017, Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018 88

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Water Amendment Bill 2018

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018

National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018

Superannuation Auditor Registration Imposition Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (ASIC Fees) Bill 2018

Australian Astronomical Observatory (Transition) Bill 2018

Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018

Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2018

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018

Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2018

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018

Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017

Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018

Assent 88 Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018 88

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Lottery Betting) Bill 2018

Assent 88 Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018, Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018 88

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 88 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 and related bills, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 88

Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 88 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 89

Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 89 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 89

Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 89 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018 89

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2018

Report from Committee 89 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 and a related bill, pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 89 Report 89 17:56 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I present the report on current and future impacts of climate change on housing, buildings and infrastructure, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator RICE 155410 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report serves as an important reminder, given the context of what's being discussed this week, both here in the parliament and in the media, about the future of our electricity supply and systems. Climate change is real. It's happening now, and if we don't put the brakes on as fast as possible the ramifications will be dire. The report is the learnings from many submissions and hearings in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. The committee spoke to local councils, engineers, climate experts, insurers, business leaders and scientists—the whole range of stakeholders who are staring down the barrel, looking at the impacts of climate change. At its core, this report serves as a tally of the risks and the costs of a do-nothing approach to climate change—the still severe but manageable consequences of a world where carbon pollution is rapidly reduced and the options available to government to manage and choose between these alternatives. Now I want to note up-front, as is clear from the structure of the report, that the committee was not able to reach consensus recommendations that could be included in this report. As chair, I put forward a suite of recommendations that I felt were based very strongly on the evidence that was produced before us, but the committee determined not to support those recommendations. As it stands, the recommendations that I put forward as chair have been included as additional comments from the Greens. The government senators had no recommendations. Their additional comments merely note a range of things that the government is already doing. They were not engaging with the serious nature of the evidence that was put before us in this important committee. The Labor Party's recommendations go considerably further than the government's, but they're basically a watered down version of our recommendations, if you compare the two of them. For example, we recommend that we should reach net zero emissions by 2040; the Labor Party say 2050. Where we have recommendations that say, 'These are things that need to occur,' the Labor Party's recommendations say that they will consider them. And where other recommendations actually put some firm time lines in place to acknowledge the importance of urgent action, those time lines are left out of the Labor recommendations in their additional comments. So I encourage you to look through all sets of recommendations, and, if you read the report, I think you will see that the Greens' recommendations are strongly supported by the evidence put before us. One of the most serious areas that we looked at, which is a consequence of our ongoing fossil fuel use, is the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and the thermal expansion of the oceans. It's going to result in a sea level rise of at least 1.1 metres over the coming decades. That's looking more and more like a lowball given the accelerating rate of sea level rise. Initial estimates are that there will be $226 billion in potential damage to our infrastructure because of sea level rise. The department of climate change has calculated that a third of the estimated 700,000 existing homes in the coastal zone are at risk of inundation under a sea level rise scenario of 1.1 metres. That's a quarter of a million homes. Our inquiry found that we were simply not ready for such a scenario. Federal, state and local governments are not preparing for what this is going to mean. Managed retreat, which would require new development to occur further away from the shore, we found was an effective form of adaptation to minimise the costs that would ultimately be incurred. And, yes, managed retreat is really difficult, but it seriously needs to be considered. Our Greens recommendation was very strongly that state and territory governments should develop effective coastal retreat mechanisms. That sea-level rise is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If we can't reduce emissions in time to stop the slide of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets into the Atlantic and Southern oceans, we will be facing ongoing sea level rise and coastal retreat for centuries, if not millennia. Governments and planners must start planning now and preparing for this scenario or risk exacerbating the cost and the damage that's going to occur. We received evidence from CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology that looked at the implications of four degrees of warming by 2090 for heatwaves in our major urban centres. It might sound a long way off, 2090, but my heart goes out to babies that are being born this year. And a shout-out to Aiden Bakker and the soon-to-be-born offspring of my staff member, Georgia Webster. They will only be 72 in 2090, younger than a number of senators in this place. It is unthinkable what that four degrees of warming is going to mean in 2090. In Melbourne, my home town, we'd see the average number of days over 35 degrees more than double from 11 to 24. Perth goes from 28 a year to 63. But worst of all is Darwin, which will have 265 days per year where the maximum temperature over 35 degrees Celsius. To compound this, we know temperatures will be exacerbated by the urban heat island effect. And we already know the awful impacts that extreme heat has on human health, including heat stress and heatstroke exacerbating pre-existing conditions. And then, of course, there are the knock-on effects of increasing drought and increasing bushfire risk from this extreme heat. Our building codes are woefully inadequate for this future. We need serious action on minimum construction standards to mitigate the effect of extreme heat and to ensure that buildings are themselves energy efficient so that they're not just adding to the problem. Then there are the ramifications for our electricity infrastructure. It's well known that heatwaves increase demand, putting pressure on our grids to supply sufficient power. But the inquiry also heard about the risks of climate-driven extremes, including the potential of heat stress shutting down generating units, including those baseload coal power stations, grid transformers and transmission lines. Drought means that thermal generators run out of water to run their cooling cycles and that hydroelectricity plants have insufficient water to generate power. And powerlines, as we know, are particularly vulnerable to intense storms and wind speeds, just like we saw in South Australia with a storm that somehow those on the other side of the chamber continue to blame on wind turbines. I could go on. The impacts to our water infrastructure, our transport infrastructure, the challenges of adaptation in cyclone regions and the tricky management of responsibilities between the three levels of government all pose challenges that are worthy of separate reports in their own right. They demand immediate consideration by governments to ensure that we are prepared. The tragedy is—as the evidence to our inquiry showed—that, despite our best efforts to adapt once we decide to seriously do so globally, it may not be enough. We must face the reality that a world that will be four degrees warmer than today by the end of the century is a world that most likely cannot be effectively adapted to. We simply can't be certain exactly how the earth system will adjust to such inflated levels of carbon dioxide being injected into the atmosphere at what is probably the fastest rate in the planet's history. This isn't to cast doubt on the amazing work that climate scientists do—and, yes, I know this work at very close range, living with one of those climate scientists! It's the reality of complex systems with tipping points and non-linear feedback loops that we are still to this day learning about. What we do know is that if we, as a society, can reduce our carbon pollution to zero as quickly as technically possible, and then draw down carbon to a safe limit, we can avoid most of these anticipated costs. We will avoid spending the dollars, we will save lives and we will protect the future survival of our human societies on this planet. But if we don't—if, globally, we continue to delay, to prevaricate and to listen to the dinosaurs—then, simply, we are stuffed. This is an existential risk. It's a generational challenge that we must confront. It's absolutely damning that, instead, we are caught in this awful debate about whether a 26 per cent reduction in the carbon intensity of the electricity grid by 2030—the easiest and the cheapest part of our economy to decarbonise—is too little or too much or just about right. This is why the Greens have as our first recommendation: That the Australian Government commit to a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions for Australia by 2040 and the actions necessary to achieve this target. Australia must do its fair share and it must do it fast. I want to thank everybody who made submissions to this inquiry, everybody who attended our hearings, my colleague committee members, and the secretariat for the hard work that they do. I really hope that this report is going to be a very valuable resource in considering what the impacts of climate change are going to be. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Rice, your time has expired. Senator Rice 155410 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:07 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia Congratulations to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee on this important report. It is particularly timely that I will be presenting my private senator's bill shortly after the tabling of this report on the impact of climate change on housing, buildings and infrastructure. It is also appropriate that I will be presenting my bill just as negotiations advance on the National Energy Guarantee. Moderating electricity prices on the supply side is important, to be sure, but reducing energy bills through demand-side initiatives must also play a key role in a holistic approach to energy policy. There are estimates that the NEG will cut energy bills by $150 a year. The other side of the equation is that improved energy efficiency would mean another $150 saving to low-income earners, as well as reduced electricity consumption. That is precisely the point being made by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council. Just as the NEG is supposed to address certainty of electricity supply, my bill is designed to make a small but significant contribution to the other side of the equation—making rental accommodation more energy efficient and, therefore, cheaper to heat and cool. Importantly, energy efficiency measures are able to give direct relief to people who are acutely vulnerable to energy poverty. As the report says, upgrading thermal building performance can prevent mortality and morbidity consequences that would otherwise occur from extremes in temperature. The report highlights an example of an extreme heatwave, in which those in low-energy-efficiency homes can be exposed to heat stress for 14 hours more than those in homes with high energy efficiency. It is also estimated that, in Melbourne during a heatwave, 374 lives would be saved if people were not occupying low-energy-rated homes, due to extreme heat stress. The figure for people who live in high-energy-rated homes is estimated to be 37. Additionally, in this heatwave, there would be about a thousand presentations to emergency departments from those in low-rated homes compared to 280 from those in high-rated homes. Thirty per cent of Australian homes are rental properties, a high proportion of which are low-income households. As mentioned in the report, low-income rental households are the most vulnerable to risks of climate change because those homes are typically much lower quality. A submission included in the report by the Climate and Health Alliance highlighted that rental housing is poorly adapted and most vulnerable to climate change. Unfortunately, those households typically lack the means to upgrade the energy efficiency of their property, even when benefits of doing so would often be substantial. Also, people that rent have difficulty influencing their landlord to improve the efficiency of their building. Submissions by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and Sustainable Business Australia call for new, innovative financial incentives to encourage retrofitting and energy auditing of private housing. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018 that I am proposing to our federal parliament is designed to do just that, at the same time as having the broader purpose of shining a spotlight on the considerable benefits that would result from more ambitious energy efficiency policies. Meaningful long-term outcomes to lift people out of energy poverty will only be achieved by a holistic approach to energy policy that assesses not only the supply side but also the demand side through energy-efficient measures. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Do you seek leave to continue your remarks? Senator STORER 275424 Yes, I do. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 92 BILLS Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 92

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018

In Committee 92 18:12 The CHAIR 112096 The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. 18:12 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I move amendment (1) on sheet 8410: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$44,999", substitute "$50,000". I know that I voted for the losing Greens motion this afternoon, but I now want to move this amendment, which puts a new repayment point at $50,000. 18:12 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I just want to put on the record that Labor understands that moving the repayment threshold up to $50,000 is, in fact, better than what's proposed in this bill. We heard compelling evidence around this in the inquiry. It was a very short inquiry—just half a day in Melbourne. That was all the government's then timetable allowed. Sadly, we're where we are. Labor believes that the HELP repayment system should be looked at as part of our national inquiry into post-secondary education, and we know from evidence at that hearing on the bill that the repayment thresholds are being lowered not for any noble purpose, but simply for the government's desire to make budget savings at the expense of young Australians, who are our future and deserve much better understanding of education as an investment instead of the monotony of the cost of education that we hear from this current government. Labor's not satisfied that the government's done enough to look at how the HELP repayment thresholds intersect with the tax and social security systems. So, with those reservations, we still oppose this proposal from you, Senator Hinch. 18:13 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria The original push by the Greens, supported by Labor—which lost—was to maintain the status quo at, I think, $52,600, or something close to that. Pauline Hanson had the disgusting plan to reduce it to $29,999, which I said this afternoon is not even worth discussing. The government has come back up a little bit. They started, I think, at $42,000, and they've now come up to $45,000. I'd say again what I mentioned earlier today—that the Treasurer and finance minister both told me that Canberra is about compromise, and that 70 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. If they come across to us with this amendment at $50,000, I think a lot more people in this building, as well as students and women trying to repay their student debts, would be a lot happier. I think it's much fairer. The CHAIR: Senator Hinch, I remind you to refer to senators by their correct title. 18:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government will not be supporting Senator Hinch's amendment. We appreciate the intent behind the amendment. Senator Hinch did just acknowledge that the government has moved from proposals in previous reform packages to what will now be nearly $46,000 in terms of the starting threshold on 1 July next year. I reiterate that one of the important things that we've done is to apply a steady schedule in the repayment rate. We think that steady schedule is important to the thresholds at which it adjusts, which we hope will stop some of the clustering that we've seen around certain income bands under previous proposals. We thank Senator Hinch for proposing the amendment and for his engagement with us on the bill, but we are not in a position to support his amendment at this time. The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8410, as moved by Senator Hinch, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:20]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 10 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 41 NOES Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Smith, DA Smith, DPB Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:25 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I have been informed that neither the government nor Labor will support my amendment, so I withdraw it. The CHAIR: The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:30]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Williams, JR 32 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 4 PAIRS Abetz, E Farrell, D Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Cormann, M Wong, P Sinodinos, A Kitching,

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 94 18:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be now read a third time. Pr oceedings suspended from 18:41 to 19:31

The Senate divided. [18:38]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 34 AYES Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Williams, JR 33 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 4 PAIRS Abetz, E Farrell, D Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Cormann, M Wong, P Sinodinos, A Kitching,

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 95

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 95 19:31 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Schedule 1 of the bill proposes to amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to require NBN to provide emergency service organisations with access to its towers in certain circumstances. These emergency service organisations can include fire, ambulance and police as well as state and territory services. The explanatory memorandum sets out that, in recent times, several police services have requested access to towers owned or operated by NBN. However, NBN has been unable to provide this access because of line-of-business restrictions in the relevant legislation. These restrictions prevent NBN from providing access to entries that are not supplying a telecommunications service. We understand these restrictions also extend to supplying goods or services such as electricity that is needed to power transmission equipment located on the tower. Clearly these restrictions are impractical and unnecessary when it comes to emergency service organisations. Schedule 1 proposes to amend the existing restrictions applying to the NBN so that such access can be supplied to eligible emergency service organisations without breaching those restrictions. Access in general would allow an eligible person to install, maintain, operate or remove equipment. Labor is supportive of this proposal as it seems to be a sensible step. It raises a more general point though that is worth considering. The Australian public have made a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure as a result of the NBN rollout. These investments will translate into various communications assets that are spread across the country. There is a range of public interest services in which these assets can play a useful role. Supporting the efficient deployment of the communications infrastructure of emergency service organisations is certainly in the public interest. At present, these organisations would typically seek access to the towers of mobile carriers or, where necessary, build their own. This allows them to install and operate equipment that supports their communication networks, which are needed for daily communications and during disaster and emergency response times. Naturally, to support the cost-effective deployment of this infrastructure, emergency service organisations will wish to leverage existing infrastructure where it is available. The schedule will establish a tower access regime to facilitate that access. Under the proposed tower access regime, NBN would be required to give access to the tower and related sites. If there is another tower in the vicinity of the tower owned or operated by the NBN, the NBN would need to be satisfied that it would not be reasonable for that entity to access the other tower before providing access to its own. It is anticipated that an eligible person would need to provide sufficient evidence to the NBN to enable it to be reasonably satisfied. We are satisfied that schedule 1 offers adequate safeguards in that NBN is not required to provide access where it is not technically feasible. This might occur in circumstances where there is no space or capacity on the tower in question. Imposing such a requirement would create a range of operational and technical challenges that would be both costly and impractical unless a fair mechanism for covering costs were in place. Whilst this measure can help better leverage lower impact infrastructure, the government's failures have been highly evident in the Mobile Black Spot Program. First we had the ANAO report on round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which highlighted serious flaws, and later we had the Productivity Commission echoing these findings. This is a program that's supposed to improve public safety and expand mobile phone coverage across Australia. In round 1, the funding promised to deliver 499 new and upgraded mobile base stations across Australia, yet more than 80 per cent of the announced locations for the new mobile phone towers were in Liberal- or Nationals-held electorates, with less than seven per cent in electorates held by Labor members. Further, the ANAO found that one in four of the base stations did not extend coverage. That's nearly 125 towers that did not extend coverage. Just to repeat: the Audit Office report found that one in four of the black spot stations funded in round 1 did not extend mobile phone coverage. The co-location arrangements for round 1 of the program were also nothing short of a shambles. This mismanagement has led to a waste of taxpayer dollars that could otherwise have delivered much better outcomes for regional communities. The government must heed the advice of the reports, which have issued critical assessments of the government's handling of the Mobile Black Spot Program. For far too long the government has used the program to meet political priorities rather than community needs. Around 75 per cent of locations announced under rounds 1, 2 and 3 are located in either Liberal or National Party electorates. The blatant politicisation of this program has led many states to abandon the program. There certainly remains more scope to leverage NBN assets in regional Australia to support co-location objectives and the more efficient deployment of communication infrastructure. I now wish to turn to schedule 2, which deals with the deployment of temporary mobile towers. Carrier powers and immunities are a longstanding regime under the Telecommunications Act which effectively serve to deactivate state and local planning laws for the purpose of deploying low-impact communications infrastructure. When a particular type of infrastructure is deemed to be of low impact, the usual planning processes may no longer apply. Low-impact facilities include some radio communications facilities, underground and above-ground housing, underground and some aerial cables, public payphones and emergency and co-located facilities. It's important to note these arrangements help minimise the cost and time so that telecommunications companies can deploy infrastructure more efficiently and sooner. The benefits clearly flow to consumers and carriers who can deploy infrastructure faster and more cheaply. It also means that carriers can roll out low-impact facilities and infrastructure under one national process rather than multiple state, territory and local government requirements. In general terms, the regime provides certain immunities, including from a range of state and territory laws when carrying out those activities, such as laws relating to land use, planning, design, construction, siting, tenancy, environmental assessments and protection. As the explanatory memorandum notes, schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act does not currently permit towers other than replacement towers of a particular height to be installed using carriers and immunities. Mobile towers, as everyone in this place would know, can be a sensitive local issue for communities for a variety of factors. In Australia, we're fortunate to have one of the best mobile markets in the world. This is a testament to our industry, which continues to invest in and improve the quality and coverage of the networks. Naturally, a balance must be struck between the need to deploy infrastructure efficiently and in a timely manner and the processes and risk judgements policymakers make about their deployment. But, when there are sensible opportunities to streamline and improve, we should pursue those. Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act does not currently permit towers other than replacement towers of a particular height to be installed using carriers and immunities. Temporary towers require local government approval in many places. Mobile operators are often required to obtain approvals from local governments to temporarily install these facilities. Naturally, the approvals process increases costs and time frames for deployment in exchange for greater local oversight and risk management over their deployment. Several of the amendments proposed by schedule 2 to the bill would allow towers to be installed temporarily under the proposed conditions, provided they are deemed to be low impact. As I noted earlier, when infrastructure is deemed low impact, it allows local approval processes to be bypassed. Specifically, schedule 2 to the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act to allow the Minister for Communications to specify that a temporary telecommunications tower is a low-impact facility. This would be done in certain circumstances which have been described as relating to the maintenance of existing facilities, providing additional coverage during an event and providing services to emergency service organisations to respond to a natural disaster or an emergency. These are all legitimate circumstances in which temporary mobile infrastructure is deployed. The bill indicates a temporary tower would be limited to no more than 30 metres in height. As it stands, we do not have sufficient practical insight to understand the implications of what that means in terms of existing practice. Labor is supporting steps to streamline processes for the deployment of mobile infrastructure, provided it is safe and the benefits outweigh the risks. However, this is often a matter of significant sensitivity to the community and it is not desirable for such legislation to be unduly rushed through the Senate. It is both prudent and appropriate to allow such proposals to be scrutinised through an inquiry to ensure that any potential risks are understood and the practical changes from the status quo are understood. The deployment of infrastructure and the approval processes that go with it are very much a local matter for planning authorities. The role of the Commonwealth here is unique in that we're using Commonwealth law to override local requirements. This must be treated sensitively and with due care to ensure all stakeholders have a practical understanding of what the practical implications are. From what we understand, there are no new powers accompanying the proposed change in approach. Rather, potential breaches of requirements to remove temporary facilities after a designated period of time would fall under general powers for breaches of the Telecommunications Act. The Australian Local Government Association has expressed several concerns about schedule 2. As we understand it, the ALGA is not opposed to streamlining processes for the purpose of deploying temporary infrastructure to support responses to emergencies or natural disasters, which I think we would all support, but the ALGA is not supportive of the other defined circumstances which relate to events, maintenance and peak periods. These concerns have been expressed on the basis that the proposed amendments to the bill are a concern for local government insofar as they propose to override planning, consultation and safety assessment provisions. It remains unclear which safety assessment provisions they would be overriding. The ALGA have also expressed concerns that low-impact determinations should not be able to override local government heritage provisions or precincts. We do not have a sufficient understanding of the issue to form a risk judgement on these views. But, given the practicalities of these on-the-ground issues and the distance at which the federal parliament typically operates from them, an inquiry process is appropriate to ensure these matters can be considered in a transparent way. In summary, Labor will be supporting schedule 1 of this bill. We would also support a second reading of the bill, as the measures are sensible and have been proposed in good faith. Nonetheless, we consider that it is in the public interest to ensure that this bill is scrutinised by the Senate through a short inquiry process to identify any potential risks or practicalities which at this present time are not well understood. The community expects us to be responsible custodians of any changes to law where local requirements are overridden. The laws are designed to strike the right balance between the community's need to access reliable, affordable telecommunication services and ensuring that property owners, local governments and communities have a say in the deployment of infrastructure that affects them. I intend to move a motion to see this bill proceed to a short inquiry process. It's both a reasonable and a sensible measure, and I hope it will have the support of the government and all other parties in the Senate. I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and the bill be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2018". 19:47 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 includes two measures. The first is to allow access to NBN towers by emergency services organisations, and the second is to specify temporary telecommunication towers as low-impact facilities. The Australian Greens support the intent of this bill and we strongly support access to telecommunication services during emergencies. We are supportive of the changes proposed in schedule 1 of the bill, although we have not been able to obtain a record of any emergency services requesting access to NBN towers in the past. Perhaps this is something that the minister would be willing to provide. The changes proposed in the bill were outlined in a consultation paper last year entitled Possible amendments to telecommunications carrier powers and immunities. According to the explanatory memorandum, the carrier powers and immunities regime minimises the regulatory burden on carriers. The government is seeking to extend this regime to include temporary powers so that carriers do not need to obtain development approval from local government to temporarily install these facilities, which increases, they say, costs and time frames for deployment and affects the business case for their use. While the government have focused on the benefits to telecommunications companies of being able to sidestep regulations and improve their business cases, they seem to have overlooked many of the concerns voiced by local governments and councils around Australia during consultations on this legislation. The Australian Local Government Association stated in their submission to the consultation: It is not surprising that carriers will continue to push to speed up approval processes, reduce their costs and reduce timeframes. This purely commercial interest needs to be balanced with planning laws which are designed to protect public safety and limit impacts on the environment, whilst ensuring that the community has a say in the planning process. The ALGA, along with many in local government councils from around Australia, note in their submissions that carriers already ride roughshod over local communities with disregard for safety regulations, heritage sites, environmental protections and cultural considerations. There is no reason to skirt these regulations for major events, holiday periods and scheduled maintenance, which should be subject to local government approval to ensure that there is no interference with other infrastructure and services, as well as environmental, heritage and cultural sites. We support allowances for genuine emergencies and natural disasters, however. Clause 8B, where a temporary tower is installed for an event, allows the tower to remain up for 138 days, whereas clause C, where a tower is installed for a holiday period, allows the tower to stay up for 90 days. Clause 9 requires the carrier to restore the land. However, according to local government, carriers have a poor track record of restoring sites, and there is no penalty to ensure that that restoration of land is enforced. This legislation follows a genuinely disturbing pattern from the Minister for Communications of introducing legislation and not allowing sufficient time for consideration, opportunity to refer to committee or scrutiny by community and stakeholders before trying to ram it blindly through the parliament. We will be supporting the ALP's amendment to refer this legislation to committee so that local governments and councils can carefully scrutinise the many local planning rules this legislation seeks to stomp on and the potential long-term impacts of these so-called temporary measures. 19:52 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I rise to outline the opposition of the Liberal Democrats to the Telecommunication Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill empowers the Commonwealth to authorise the installation of temporary telecommunications towers against the wishes of local councils. The Commonwealth will be able to overrule local councils not just where temporary towers serve an emergency purpose but also when temporary towers facilitate peak demand, such as during holiday periods. Local councils have a keen interest in ensuring that telecommunications in their areas work smoothly, particularly during holiday periods. So local councils won't get in the way when there is a genuine need for a temporary telecommunications tower. But local councils also have an interest in looking after the amenity of the local residents they represent. So local councils have a legitimate role in representing local residents by preventing excessive telecommunications paraphernalia next to their homes and their businesses in our pristine, natural areas. This is democracy. The Commonwealth has a more distant connection with the people than any local government authority in any local government area. The Commonwealth is also in a position to do favours for the benefit of telecommunications companies rather than local communities. In fact, this susceptibility to crony capitalism is the only reason why the Commonwealth is seeking to override local councils. The Liberal Democrats stand for democracy, and that is why we oppose this bill. 19:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'd like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Telecommunication Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 creates a new tower access regime for towers owned or operated by NBN corporations, such as NBN Co Ltd, and would also allow the Minister for Communications to specify temporary telecommunication towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to permit NBN corporations to provide emergency service organisations, like police, fire and ambulance services, with access to towers and associated sites and facilities. The bill includes requirements for NBN Co to meet competitive neutrality requirements and also provides that NBN Co will not have to provide access if this is not technically feasible or if it does not have sufficient capacity on a tower for its own reasonable requirements or existing contractual requirements. NBN Co will be required to publish a standard offer for tower access and must provide access on a non-discriminatory basis. These obligations are consistent with its general obligations when it supplies services to telecommunication companies. Schedule 2 to the bill will amend schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the more efficient installation of temporary telecommunications towers when used during emergencies, maintenance, peak holiday periods and major sporting, cultural and other events. The amendments in schedule 2 to the bill will allow the Minister for Communications to specify temporary towers as low-impact facilities in certain circumstances. These changes will allow telecommunications carriers to quickly provide services to the community, businesses and emergency service organisations. Except during an emergency or natural disaster, there will be strict height restrictions imposed on temporary towers. The changes also include conditions to ensure that a temporary tower is removed within a set time frame and that carriers restore the land. I call on senators to support this bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator O'Neill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017 99

Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 99 19:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to put on the record Labor's position with regard to the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Family violence continues to be a scourge on Australian society. Politicians on all sides in this place must never lose focus on addressing its root causes and aiming to eliminate it altogether from Australian homes. A damning report issued by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in February 2018 sent the strong message that we are not doing enough. That report found that, on average, one woman a week and one man a month were killed by a current or former partner. It found that intimate partner violence was the single greatest health risk factor for women aged 25 to 44, and it found that Indigenous women are more than 32 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence than their non-Indigenous sisters. With those sobering statistics in mind, Labor welcomes the intent of this bill, which aims to make a number of changes to how the family law system operates in this country in relation to family violence. Its main aim is to simplify the jurisdictions in which family matters can be heard and dealt with. To summarise its main provisions, the bill would expand the powers of some state and territory courts, such as children's courts, so that those courts gain some family law parenting jurisdiction; increase the property value threshold under which the state and territory courts can hear contested family law property matters without both parties' consent; allow for short-term judgements in interim matters before the state and territory courts; remove the 21-day time limit which applies to a family law order that is revived, varied or suspended by a state or territory court when making an interim family violence order; strengthen the power of the family law courts to summarily dismiss unmeritorious cases and vexatious claims; remove the requirement that a court must explain certain matters to a child when that explanation would not be in the child's best interests; and remove vastly outdated wording in the act that suggests that conjugal rights and an obligation to perform marital services still exists in Australian law. The original bill also contained a measure that would criminalise the breach of personal protection injunctions, which the government has excised from this bill following negotiations with Labor. Let me take some time to explain why this change was made. Labor supports taking a tough approach to the prevention of domestic violence. Making sure injunctions and intervention orders are properly enforced is part of that. So Labor supports, in principle, the criminalising of breaches of PPIs. The system at present, where victims must bring a civil action in the family law courts to enforce the civil penalty for a breach, puts too much onus on victims to be the ones upholding the integrity of the system. That's not fair, and it's not a fair responsibility for traumatised and often fearful people to have to take on that burden. However, the proposal for criminalisation contained in the government's bill contained some serious flaws. Namely, criminal penalties would have applied to breaches of PPIs that were already in place. This added a retrospective element to the bill, which was unacceptable to Labor. As a rule, parliaments should never pass retrospective laws. Our citizens should know the terms and consequences of our laws before they make decisions. It is unfair, unjust and undemocratic to change these terms and consequences later. In this case, the terms of existing PPIs, which are often reached by agreement and negotiation between the two parties, would have changed after they were made. This is unacceptable. Labor believes it would be an abrogation of the rights of both parties to consensual PPIs if criminal liability were to retrospectively apply to a breach. However, this was not the only problem with this particular measure. The new criminal offence for the breach of a PPI would be a Commonwealth criminal offence. But the whole idea behind the provision is to enable state and territory police to enforce the orders. This is a basic problem. As Tasmania Police said during the Senate committee hearings: For your information, state and territory police—this may not be something of which the committee is aware—do not routinely enforce the Commonwealth criminal law. Therefore, the very problem which this measure is trying to fix—enforcement of breaches—may be unchanged due to the difficulties inherent in asking state and territory police to enforce Commonwealth law. The Attorney-General's Department acknowledged this was a problem to which it had not yet found a solution, telling the Senate committee that: … the practical implementation issues with the enforcement of criminalisation of personal protection injunctions need to be worked through. The parliament cannot pass a law that the government has not yet worked out how to implement effectively. It's pretty simple. The other consideration is the major Australian Law Reform Commission report into the Family Law Act and the family law system, which is due in March next year. This report will inevitably address how family violence matters are dealt with through the family law system, including measures like PPIs. We in Labor have called for the government to wait until that report is published to consider how best to make the significant change of criminalising the breaching of PPIs, and to take action to legislate immediately thereafter. This would not impose a time delay on this change being made. Under the original bill, the criminalisation of PPI breaches would not have come into force until 12 months after the royal assent—that is, after the publication of the ALRC report at the end of March. So the only difference excising this measure from the bill will make is that it will be done better, and in a more informed way, immediately after the publication of the ALRC review. In fact, it could happen even earlier. I thank the government for being willing to negotiate with Labor on this point and I urge them to use the time between now and 31 March next year to work through the implementation issues that have been highlighted through this legislative process. Another contentious part of this bill is the expansion of some of the family law parenting jurisdiction to relevant state and territory Magistrates Courts. Again, Labor supports this measure in principle. If relatively simple parenting matters can be adjudicated in the same jurisdiction as other family law matters, then that's a good thing for all parties involved. However, it is well known—and evidence at the Senate inquiry was given to this effect—that state and territory Magistrates Courts are already incredibly underresourced, with the workload that they have now. This is partly due to an increase in unrepresented litigants, thanks to cuts to legal aid and Community Legal Centre funding and inadequate funding for the judicial system in general. Giving certain courts expanded jurisdiction, with no extra funding, would be unworkable. You cannot expect overstretched systems to take on more responsibility without more resources. It's pretty basic. Moreover, the Law Council gave evidence during the relevant Senate inquiry that many state and territory courts do not actually exercise the family law jurisdiction that they already have, due to a lack of training or expertise: Many judicial officers in state and territory local courts do not have experience or knowledge of the family law jurisdiction, or have only limited knowledge and experience, and are reluctant to exercise their powers as a result. The government has sought to allay these concerns by arguing that the expanded jurisdiction will first be tested through a series of pilots in different states and territories, in conjunction with those governments. We in federal Labor would take the opportunity to urge the government to put funding concerns first and foremost when considering the design of these pilots, and to work cooperatively with state and territory governments and court systems. It's imperative that these already struggling court systems are not pushed beyond the brink. This bill we are currently debating comes in the middle of a period of intense change for the family law system. There is another bill currently in the House, also focused on the issue of family violence, which seeks to ban cross-examination of domestic violence victims by their perpetrators—it is a much-overdue bill, I would add, and has Labor's support. Of course, we are also shortly expecting the government to introduce a bill that will overhaul the Family Court system completely. The government has expressed an intention to merge the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court and gradually phase out the Family Court as a specialist division. It also wants to abolish the appeals division of the Family Court and have that responsibility instead become part of the Federal Court. Labor is yet to see that legislation, and so we are reserving our position, but, as a general observation, it's important that in this time of great change for the family law system we tread carefully and deliberately, that in the general sweep of things we don't forget to examine the detail. It's an obvious point to make, but family law, more than any other part of our court system, touches people's lives, often at their most vulnerable moments. Tinkering with that system should come with a great amount of care. Labor will ensure that we diligently scrutinise any and all of the changes that the government puts forward to our family law system. It's a responsibility that we take very seriously. 20:12 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The principle behind the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is sound and positive, because it's intended to strengthen the power of our legal system to protect victims of family violence. As we know, overwhelmingly and tragically in Australia, the people who suffer the impacts of family violence are women. This bill does many things. Perhaps its most significant reform is to allow relevant state and territory courts to be prescribed to have the same family law parenting jurisdiction as that held by state and territory courts of summary jurisdiction under part VII of the Family Law Act. The minister has been clear in the second reading speech about the other changes that this legislation proposes to bring about, including criminalising breaches of family law injunctions made for personal protection; removing the 21-day time limit which applies to a family law order that is revived, varied or suspended by a state or territory court when making an interim family violence order; strengthening and codifying the power of the Family Law Court to dismiss unmeritorious cases and proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; removing the requirement that a court must explain certain matters to a child when it would not be in the child's best interest to receive the explanation; and removing misleading and unnecessary wording that suggests that conjugal rights and an obligation to perform marital services still exist in Australian law. The Greens regard all of these as worthwhile steps, but we do want to place on the record that our legal system is groaning and bursting at the seams. There are many things that need to occur to deal with the pressure on our legal system. In the main, we need to see extra funding allocated to those parts of our legal and judicial system that are under the most pressure. We also need to make sure that, where we are providing some courts with extra responsibility, the responsibility is coupled with not only extra funding but extra training being provided to officers of the court and to community legal centres, which often provide support for people who are going through legal processes covered by this legislation. That's why the Greens recommend that courts and legal aid services be properly resourced to adapt to the changes proposed by the bill. We made that view clear in the additional comments that we made to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this legislation. We based those comments on submissions made, including by the Law Council of Australia, which expressed concern that the explanatory memorandum made no mention of training state and territory judicial officers in family law. We note and support the Law Council of Australia's argument that 'training is essential for the proper administration of justice' and that it is crucial that 'any such training must be ongoing so that state and territory judicial officers are kept up to date about changes in the law and so that any new judicial officers appointed to the state and territory local courts receive the base-level training as part of their induction'. Those quotes are taken from the law council's submission to the committee's inquiry. We also note the Australian Human Rights Commission's submission, which cites research that indicates that many judges do not have the skills or the training to directly interact with children and young people. We think it crucial that all judicial officers, including judges, are provided with training that allows them to understand the ways that they can best interact with children and young people. It goes without saying that children and young people are often incredibly vulnerable, particularly when they become engaged with our judicial system. It is worth pointing out that this legislation deals with legal processes that are often where the rubber hits the road, in terms of our community coming into contact with our legal system, and often at times when members of the community are particularly vulnerable. It's really important that our courts are provided with not only the resources to deal with the changes proposed in this legislation but the proper training and upskilling that will allow them to provide the best possible service in the most compassionate and reasonable way for members of our community who are engaged with our judicial system. As I said earlier, funding for family law courts is not currently at acceptable levels—neither, I might add, is funding for our legal aid system or our community centres. While changing elements of the law may well be a positive step—and, in the Australian Greens' view, there are positive steps in this legislation—doing that in and of itself may become largely redundant if the courts and the legal services are not given the human and financial resources to do their jobs. We can't as a society solve the terrible problem of family violence by only making technical amendments to the law. We have to do a lot more than that and we have to do a lot better than simply and only making these changes. While, as I've argued, additional resources, financial and human, are crucial and urgent, ultimately it is going to take significant cultural change for our country to eradicate the scourge of family violence, which, as I said at the start, overwhelmingly impacts women and, in Australia, is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. Parliaments can play an important role because it's in parliaments that we can change the law and make allocations of resources. But it is also from parliaments that many of our country's leaders flow. I saw our country's leaders—Prime Minister Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and the leader of the Australian Greens, Richard Di Natale—speak in a united and constructive way at an event at Parliament House last year regarding family violence. We need to make sure we keep showing the leadership that is necessary, because far too many Australian women and families are devastated and destroyed by family violence. We need to change our culture in this country, because for too long too many men in Australia have failed to understand how appalling and unacceptable their violence towards family members, overwhelmingly women, is. We are going to need to change attitudes. We're going to need leadership. We're going to have to have some difficult conversations in our country. We're going to have to overturn many of the sexist, anti-women prejudices which still pervade our society and, as we've seen in recent times, still, unfortunately, exist in this very chamber. 20:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This evening I rise to contribute to the debate on the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I was pleased to be part of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. Submitters to the inquiry noted almost overwhelmingly the worthy objectives behind this legislation, but they noted that there were still some significant and problematic aspects to it that should be resolved. Firstly, as has been noted in the debate already, the question was raised about the fact that this reform is happening in a piecemeal way, without concern for the future findings of the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of our family law system. The resources are being taken up in implementing this legislation within the context of an urgent need for more change to our family law system—specifically, putting the needs of children first and enabling much faster access to justice. In addition, we know that family violence and child abuse, and the way those issues are managed within the courts, will also be incredibly important to the review. In terms of the bill's provisions, there are significant issues in relation to PPIs. I note, for example, that the criminal penalties that would have applied to breaches of PPIs that were already in place have added a retrospective element to the bill, which is unacceptable to us. We, in this place, should all understand that parliaments should not pass retrospective laws. The citizens of this nation need to know the consequences of our laws before they make decisions. For this not to be the case is incredibly unfair and undemocratic. All of our citizens need to know the terms and consequences of our laws, which should not be retrospective. So we can see in this situation the terms of existing PPIs, which are often reached by agreement and negotiation between the parties, would have, as we found in this legislation, been changed after they were made. We heard clear evidence and concern about this during the course of the inquiry. It is unacceptable for this to be the case. It would be an abrogation of the rights of both parties that have made these agreements, which were consensual, if criminal liability were to apply retrospectively to a breach of such an order. This is not the only problem that has arisen with this measure. The new offence for the breach of a PPI would be a Commonwealth criminal offence, but the whole idea behind the provision is to enable state and territory police to enforce the orders. The Tasmania Police, very clearly during the Senate committee hearings, said: For your information, state and territory police—this may not be something of which the committee is aware—do not routinely enforce the Commonwealth criminal law. I've seen numerous examples of this problem, not only within family law but also within breaches of privacy, breaches of technology privacy, online abuse and a whole range of other offences where it's quite difficult to engage state police in federal offences—postal offences and other kinds of things. I do not think that this kind of issue has been adequately addressed for us in this place. The problem which this measure is trying to fix—which is the enforcement of breaches—may be unchanged due to the difficulties inherent in asking state and territory police to enforce this law. I'm very pleased to note that the Attorney-General's Department did, in fact, acknowledge that this was an issue to which a solution has not yet been found. To my mind, this completely underscores the reason we need the Australian Law Reform Commission to report. We need to work closely with the states and territories on how issues of family violence are policed so that we can embed their enforcement, be that under state or Commonwealth law, in an effective way so that we have confidence that breaches of those laws can be upheld. As I said before, the examples of state police not enforcing Commonwealth law are, to my mind, in terms of what I've seen since my time in this place, too numerous to name. Short of having an officer of the AFP in every police station around the country, I do not see that we have adequately resolved these issues. It's pretty incredible to me that this place should be put in the position of seeking to put in place an unenforceable law. It's important that the personal protection injunctions should be excised from this bill, and it's significant that the government has negotiated with the ALP on this point. We're going to have to continue, as has been highlighted by my colleagues, to work through those implementation issues. I note that there's been significant support from many stakeholders in relation to independent children's lawyers and children's courts being able to make findings on behalf of children in relation to these issues. I personally think it's important that we see children's courts in Australia able to deal with these issues. They are often much better placed to deal sensitively with the needs of young people who are caught up in situations of family violence. I think it is a worthy measure within the bill that they have been given jurisdiction over these issues. I also believe, through the findings of the Senate inquiry, that we have missed the opportunity to participate in a holistic debate about this issue, because we don't know where the Law Council of Australia is up to in relation to the issues that it is currently deliberating on. In relation to the dispensing with explanations regarding orders on injunctions to children, this evidence was before the committee: Currently, if a court makes an order or injunction that is inconsistent with a family violence order, the Act requires the court to explain the order to the protected person, who may be a child. The bill would amend this provision, to give the court some discretion not to do so–or to exclude a particular matter from explanation, where it would be in a child's 'best interests'. I was pleased to see that the department noted: … this could be used to avoid re-traumatisation of a child who had witnessed or been a victim of family violence having to return to court to have a decision explained— to them. It was clear that that measure had broad support in evidence, but a number of submitters made it very clear that it would normally be in a child's best interests to have an order explained in the vast majority of cases. I don't want to see Australian judges in a position where they use this capacity now within the law to not explain outcomes to children, because they've not generally been well equipped with the skills and training to undertake direct interactions with children and young people. As the Law Council said in their evidence to the inquiry, we do not want to see this change in the law leading to: … judges and court officials adopting a default position that avoids providing children with explanations of court orders and injunctions relevant to their safety and wellbeing because they consider that the children are 'too young to understand'. These issues need to be dealt with sensitively by the courts. In order to do that I believe it will require a greater level of resources and training to be made available to our courts to be able to deal with these issues sensitively. I note, for example, that Domestic Violence Victoria said they supported the amendment in principle, in relation to infants and very young children, but objected to it in relation to older children and young people, who have consistently told them that they feel disempowered in the context of family violence and frustrated by others speaking on their behalf. It was particularly significant, as raised by DV Victoria, that the royal commission in Victoria found: … children and young people were noted as saying their experiences of the family court were unpleasant, and that it was a space in which they felt ignored. What we need to see is a sound basis for which judges or courts opt out from explaining decisions to children. It has to be made based on a developmental assessment made by an appropriately qualified professional, and, in the case of First Nations children and their best interests, other considerations also need to be taken into account, including: their relationship with a broader set of family members, such as grandparents; their right to enjoy their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture; and their right to share that culture with other people. I note that the department found that there was broad support for the measure in most of the submissions, but it's important, I believe, as does Labor, to make sure that it is applied in only very specific and limited circumstances and that it does, as the department says: … strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that judges do not dispense with an explanation lightly and avoiding an excessive burden on judges to consider an extensive range of matters in making a relatively confined decision. I hope that the government takes those issues on board. Key to that in particular is more resourcing for our courts, to make sure that they can deal with issues of family violence sensitively. We have also expressed concern in relation to time limits. The bill removes the 21-day time limit on parenting or related orders made by state and territory courts, including where they're revived, varied or suspended when making an interim family violence order. We can see that it was broadly supported in evidence by organisations such as Victoria Legal Aid. They noted, for example: …it would be particularly beneficial in regional areas where courts may not be able to offer another hearing for parties within a specific period. However, we can also see that the Law Council and ATSILS in Queensland expressed considerable concern that this may lead to parents and children being separated for longer periods of time than they otherwise would have needed to be because the court has been delayed in making that decision, because it's interpreted by the court as a status quo parenting arrangement. I know I don't need to stress the point of how overwhelming the impact of being before the family courts and waiting for a parenting decision is. But we need to make sure that these provisions are exercised, most importantly, in a way that puts children's interests first. I note that the department, at the time, disagreed in evidence: … the 'change to any 'status quo' parenting arrangement is only one of a number of additional factors which a judge must consider'. The department also noted: … there was an intention to provide the state and territory magistrates with information so they would fully understand the operation of this amendment. However, Labor's concern around this issue was ultimately that we should be able to review these provisions in the future to ensure that they are working effectively. Our recommendations, within Labor, in addressing this—and we look forward to putting pressure on the government to make sure that these issues are resolved—are indicative of our approach in government. First of all, there's got to be appropriate funding and increased resources and continuing training to accompany these measures, particularly the measures that expand the jurisdiction of state and territory courts. Second: That a review be undertaken after the summary dismissal provision amendments have been in operation for a period of two years— and, third— That the provisions criminalising breaches of personal protection injunctions be excised from the Bill and the intent of those provisions revisited as a matter of priority as soon as the Australian Law Reform Commission review of the family law system has released their report. I thank the chamber for its consideration of these important issues. 20:38 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The epidemic of family violence in this country is reaching crisis point. It sometimes feels like we can't go more than a few hours without hearing of a woman who's been murdered by a member of her family or hearing of a story of a woman and her children being terrorised by their partner and father. Indeed, it was only a couple of weeks ago that four out of seven of the top stories on The Age website—four out of seven—were of women murdered by men, three of them by their current partner or ex-partner. We know that domestic and family violence doesn't discriminate. It affects people from every walk of life. It disproportionately affects women. We know that domestic and family violence is the No. 1 cause of homelessness for women and their children. We know that one woman is killed per week, on average, by a current or former partner. So we need to say it like it is: this is an epidemic. Women and their children are being terrorised in their homes—in the place where we expect to feel the safest. Yet in the 2018 budget there was no new funding to tackle sexual assault and male violence in the home. We still don't have adequate funding for the essential frontline services for people experiencing domestic and family violence—services which cannot keep up with the surge in demand. You would think that, facing such an epidemic of violence, the government would spring into action with a response that matches the scale of the problem. Instead, what have we got from the Turnbull government? We have an amendment to the Family Law Act that has no increase in resources for its implementation. There is a lot of good in this bill. The aims of this bill are good. But the practical effect of this bill will shift the existing cumbersome workload from one court that has more work than it can handle to another court, and without any extra resourcing. You cannot solve the epidemic of family violence by passing some amendments to a bill without investing resources into implementation. Indeed, the Law Council of Australia has said that because this bill doesn't come with any increased funding to state and territory courts, the changes proposed: (1) are unlikely to have any practical effect; and (2) may result in list blow-outs in the children's courts. This is what this bill is going to achieve. This is what not increasing resourcing to family violence ends up achieving: next to nothing. The Greens want to see our courts and legal aid services appropriately resourced. They must be appropriately resourced to adapt to the changes proposed by this bill. On top of that, the officers of the court must be appropriately trained in family law. They must also be trained so they can appropriately interact with children and young people, many of whom have experienced trauma. This requires extra resourcing, but extra resourcing is not there as part of the legislation. Changing elements of the law, as proposed in this bill, is a positive step, but it is largely redundant if the courts and the legal services are not given the resources they need to implement the changes and to do their jobs properly. One woman is killed per week, on average, by a current or former partner. We must strive to honour their memories through action, and that means investing in the legal services, investing in the crisis centres and preventive programs that save lives, and improving and investing in the legal system and the courts to ensure that survivors of family violence are given the safety and the justice that they deserve. 20:44 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank the senators for their contribution to the debate on this bill. The government is pleased to support the passage of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill will enhance the capacity of the justice system to provide effective outcomes for vulnerable Australians who are experiencing family violence. It will implement a number of expert recommendations, including those from the Family Law Council, Victoria's 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, and the coronial inquest into the death of Luke Geoffrey Batty. The bill will facilitate the resolution of family law matters by state and territory courts in appropriate cases. This will reduce the need for vulnerable families to interact with multiple courts across the family law, family violence and child protection systems to address their legal needs. The bill will increase protections for victims of family violence by reducing the potential for inconsistent family violence orders and family law parenting orders. It will facilitate the expeditious resolution of family law matters and enable courts to better protect victims from perpetrators who attempt to use the family law system as a tool of continued victimisation. It will do this by strengthening and codifying the summary dismissal powers of the family law courts. To ensure that this provision is operating as intended and providing better protection to victims, the government will review this provision after two years. This bill will also reinforce the principle of equality within relationships by removing a redundant provision in the Family Law Act that suggests that conjugal rights and an obligation to perform marital services still exist in Australia. The government has delayed introducing criminal offences for breaches of family law injunctions made for personal protection. This government takes the safety of family violence victims seriously and remains committed to the policy intention of the proposed offences. The government will continue to work on implementation issues with policing agencies and other stakeholders and will further consider the proposed offences under the Australian Law Reform Commission's process when it has completed its comprehensive review of the family law system. The measures in the bill will deliver immediate benefits for families and the courts dealing with complex issues involving family violence, including across multiple jurisdictions. I thank senators for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 105 20:47 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (9) on sheet GJ161 together. Leave granted. Senator SESELJA HZE I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items, substitute: 3. Schedule 1, Part 2    The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (2) Schedule 1, heading to Division 1, page 8 (lines 3 and 4), omit the heading. [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (line 23), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (line 25), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (5) Schedule 1, item 20, page 10 (line 30), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (6) Schedule 1, item 20, page 10 (line 33), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 11 (line 12), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] (8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 11 (line 14), omit "Division", substitute "Part". [injunction for the personal protection of a person] The government opposes schedule 1 in the following terms: (9) Schedule 1, Division 2, page 11 (line 25) to page 19 (line 8), to be opposed. [injunction for the personal protection of a person] The government is introducing amendments to remove from this bill the proposed measure which would criminalise breaches of family law injunctions made for personal protection. The amendments on sheet GJ161 implement a recommendation made by Labor senators on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in their dissenting report on the bill and consequential technical amendments to the bill. I will now outline amendments on sheet GJ161. This government takes the safety of family violence victims seriously and remains committed to the policy intention of the proposed offences. However, through government consultation and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee process, there have been recommendations that this measure be delayed. This recommendation has been advanced notwithstanding that the measure would not have commenced until 12 months after the bill received royal assent. In order to progress passage of the remaining measures in the bill to deliver effective outcomes for Australian families experiencing family violence, the government has removed this measure. The government will continue to work on implementation matters associated with the measure, including the development of effective systems and information-sharing mechanisms that would enable police to enforce this measure. The government will give further consideration to the proposed offences following the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of the family law system. In the meantime, civil enforcement of personal protection injunctions will remain available in the family law courts. The Family Law Act currently gives state, territory and federal police officers the power to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a personal protection injunction has been breached. The police officer must bring the person, once arrested, before the Family Court, where the protected person can apply for the person to be dealt with for the breach of the injunction. The government acknowledges the calls, including the committee's report from the opposition, the Greens and key stakeholders, to ensure that measures in the bill which expand the jurisdiction of state and territory courts are appropriately resourced. The government is committed to ensuring that the measures are able to deliver outcomes to families experiencing family violence. The government is working together with states and territories through a Council of Attorneys-General family violence working group to support implementation of the bill. In the 2017-18 MYEFO, the government announced the intention to pilot the increased exercise of family law jurisdiction under the bill in selected courts in up to three states and territories. The pilots will measure the benefits for families of having all their legal matters resolved in one court while also quantifying the impact of increased exercise of family law jurisdiction on state and territory courts. The pilots will be accompanied by a package of sector support training to ensure the judicial officers, court staff, legal assistance services and child protection departments are properly equipped to exercise the enhanced jurisdiction and support families. I note that through the committee's report Labor senators also recommended that the proposed summary dismissal amendments be reviewed after two years. The government will review the impact of these provisions after two years. The government notes the recommendations by Greens committee members for officers of the court to be appropriately trained in family law and to directly interact with children and young people. The government funded the National Judicial College of Australia to deliver family violence training for judicial officers and family law training for state and territory judicial officers. The family violence training supports the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book and will improve judicial officers' understanding of family violence. The family law training will include separate modules on parenting and property and will include face-to-face training as well as ongoing online modules. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the bill be passed. The remaining measures of the bill will enhance the capacity of the justice system to provide effective outcomes for Australians experiencing family violence, in particular by strengthening the power of state and territory courts to handle family law matters in appropriate situations. The bill will reduce delays, confusion and risks of violence that can arise when parties have to initiate proceedings in multiple courts. The government commends the proposed amendments and the bill to the chamber. 20:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to speak to this amendment. I don't wish to take a lot of the chamber's time, but I would like to reiterate what Senator O'Neill said in her second reading debate remarks. I indicate the opposition will be supporting this amendment. As foreshadowed by Senator O'Neill, the major Australian Law Reform Commission report into the Family Law Act and the family law system is due next March. We in Labor have called for the government to wait until that report is published to consider how best to make the significant changes of criminalising the breach of PPIs and to take action to legislate immediately thereafter. We believe that this would not impose a time delay on this change being made and, as under the original bill, the criminalisation of the PPI breaches would not have come into force until 12 months after royal assent—that is, after the public of the ALRC report at the end of March. I welcome the fact that the government has been willing to negotiate with Labor on this matter, and thank them also for their cooperation, and for this reason we will be supporting the amendment tonight. 20:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to indicate that the Australian Greens believe that these amendments are sensible and will be supporting them. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0V I'm putting amendment (9) on sheet GJ161 only to be voted on first because, if it fails, it is consequential to the others. The question is that division 2 of part 2 stand as printed. Question negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I now put the question that amendments (1) to (8) on sheet GJ161 be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 107 20:56 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018, Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018 107

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018

Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018

Second Reading 107 20:56 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Telecommunication Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. Labor will be proposing several amendments. We will seek to reduce the scope and the impact of the $84-a-year internet levy on households connected to existing greenfield networks. This will buy sufficient time to ensure future arrangements can be reviewed in appropriate time in conjunction with broader reform decisions. Greenfield networks are small, non-NBN operators who typically deploy fibre in new estates in outer metropolitan suburbs. Second, Labor will seek to cap the government's levy charge to prevent the possibility that the base charge could increase to $10 per month, as currently allowed for under the draft legislation. Third, Labor will introduce a series of NBN related transparency amendments which seek to improve the public availability of rollout information, improve transparency of the network, and improve transparency over the business case. Before moving on to the broadband levy, I wish to note Labor supports schedule 3 of this bill. The proposed statutory infrastructure provider—SIP—scheme will provide certainty that as we move beyond the initial NBN roll-out in 2021 the community will continue to have certainty about its ability to get access to broadband services at their new home or business. In the House of Representatives the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, bizarrely, declared this bill to be an 'historic' reform. It is, unfortunately, nothing of the sort. We would encourage the government to refrain from such exaggerations here in the Senate. In practice, schedule 3 largely codifies an obligation that already exists in the NBN statement of expectations. There is nothing historic about this kind of reform. Furthermore, the bill proposes to put this, in effect, after 11.6 million premises have already been passed by the National Broadband Network. So, let's be clear—the primary function of schedule 3 is to provide certainty about the status quo from 2021 onwards. Labor supports this, and considers it is a sensible and natural step, but let's not misrepresent what it actually means. In contrast, the original commitment by Labor in 2009 was historically significant, particularly for regional and rural communities. A national broadband network was established to ensure that every Australian would have access to high-speed broadband irrespective of where they lived or worked. As a result, nearly three million homes and businesses across rural and regional Australia will have access to high-speed broadband, a sizeable proportion of which had no access to any broadband after 11 years of inaction under the Howard government. This was the single most important initiative to bridge the city-regional divide when it came to broadband in this country. Labor is proud of this achievement, and those who supported it in the Senate should be as well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for this government's support. On 25 March 2011, the coalition voted against legislation to establish the NBN to deliver universal access to high-speed broadband for all Australians. The National Party voted against it. This very Minister for Communications voted against it. Schedule 3 is a concession that the coalition, who left regional Australia in a broadband backwater, have now signed up to a principle Labor and the parliament established nearly a decade ago. Schedule 3 is a sensible step and we will support its passage. I now wish to turn to schedule 4, the government's broadband levy. Against the backdrop of higher energy bills and cost-of-living pressures, this government is today seeking to increase household broadband prices. It's also notable that the minister has delayed debate on the bill for over 18 months and its implementation by two years. So what we've seen, effectively, is delay, delay, delay. When the minister released the draft legislation in late 2016, he stated the government's intention was for the legislation to come into effect on 1 July 2017. Six months later, he changed the start date to 1 July 2018. And today the minister brings an amendment to push the start date back to 1 July 2019. So what the minister's actually done is repeatedly delayed developments such that the implementation date of the proposed internet tax would become 1 July 2019, which conveniently for this government falls into the next term of parliament. I ask my Senate colleagues: what does this mean? What does it tell us about what this minister thinks about his own policy? He knows that what he proposes will increase cost-of-living pressures on families. He knows that what he proposes is poorly designed, as argued by both the ACCC and the Productivity Commission. Moreover, the minister knows the revenue raised by this levy does not address the long-term economics of the multi-technology mix, nor does it establish a sustainable funding mechanism or do anything for regional investment. If anyone is wondering why the minister is now suddenly in a rush to pass this legislation in August, let me offer a potential explanation. NBN Co is due to release its corporate plan before the end of August 2018. This is the latest NBN corporate plan that will be issued prior to the next election. It's the last one that we'll see before we head to an election. The corporate plan will contain forecasts out to financial year 2022 but will not disclose the assumptions that underpin revenue and cost forecasts beyond that year. If the government passes this bill in August, not only would the price increases from the levy come into effect in the next term of parliament but it would also permit the government, in this term of parliament, to add the revenue from this internet tax into the NBN corporate plan from 2022 out to the year 2040. So what we're seeing is a government that have determined to take an opportunity to fudge the numbers, having undertaken delay, delay and delay. It just shows how desperate the government are. Meanwhile, the NBN has spent over $177 million on buying new copper cabling. It's hard to put 'new' and 'copper' in the same sentence, but that's what this government have done, and they've done it to the tune of $177 million. They've wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on pointless advertising campaigns and their executives were paid over $66 million in bonuses last year—all this with little to no oversight from the government whatsoever. The proposed levy before the Senate is, in effect, an internet tax that will increase the internet bills of households and businesses on non-NBN networks by up to $7.10 per month, or $84 a year. Estimates of the number of services affected by this levy range from between 240,000 to 450,000, with that number growing over time. The levy charge could increase over time to $10 per month, or $120 a year, based on how the legislation is currently drafted. To be clear at the outset, Labor considers the broadband levy to be poorly designed, the targeting of certain networks to be arbitrary and the need to even contemplate its existence in this place to be highly regrettable. It's important to note the government is increasing pressure on broadband prices across a number of fronts. It follows recent steps to establish the same wholesale NBN price for 12-, 25- and 50-megabits-per-second services, effectively raising entry-level prices for consumers by stealth. Further, the ABC has reported NBN pricing changes are also being considered that would force regional Australians on the NBN fixed wireless network to pay higher costs for the same speed as consumers in the city. There's a clear link between the issues we are grappling with here today and the cost blowouts associated with Malcolm Turnbull's multitechnology mix. In 2013, the now Prime Minister promised to deliver the NBN for $29.5 billion and he promised to have it complete by 2016. As it currently stands, the government are $20 billion over budget on the NBN and are four years behind what they promised Australians. That is clearly a failure and very, very different from what they said to the Australian people they were going to do. In November 2014, the Liberals promised to deliver the NBN for $41 billion. Again, as it stands, the government are $8 billion over that promise too. The multitechnology mix that they hailed so often as a great breakthrough has not been faster. It certainly has not been faster, but it's not been cheaper either. In fact, Malcolm Turnbull's multitechnology mix has been slower and more expensive. It's now forecast to cost $49 billion and will not be complete until July 2020. In comparison, the original fibre-to-the-premises model would have required $45 billion in peak funding, with all Australians having access to the NBN by the end of 2021. Every key assumption which underpinned this business plan has withstood the test of time. Whilst the cost per premise of deploying fibre has been reduced between 40 per cent and 50 per cent in New Zealand, in the US and in the UK, the build cost per premise of the HFC over NBN has increased by 54 per cent over the same period. Clearly there's something going wrong here under this government's rollout. Critically, beyond its $49 billion price tag, the multi-technology mix costs more to maintain. It generates less revenue and it's much more exposed to wireless competition. Fibre would have preserved an indefinite performance and reliability edge. Yet copper has already surrendered that edge, to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. It's interesting to note that modelling from the December 2013 NBN Strategic review indicates that the shift from a fibre model to a multi-technology mix would push up maintenance costs by $200 million per annum. Further, that same report indicated that a fibre network would have generated an extra $300 million per annum in revenue. Together, that's a $500 million earnings gap according to the government's own figures. This earnings gap is nearly two-thirds of the estimated losses in the satellite and fixed wireless footprint. It's more than 10 times what this levy is expected to raise. This is notable, because the 2013 Strategic review was a partisan document, quite literally drafted by the Prime Minister's mates, and was subsequently exposed as being predicated on assumptions that systematically overstated the cost and time to deploy fibre, while disingenuously understating the costs of switching to copper and HFC. Yet if such a flawed document concedes that the multi-technology mix has created at least a half a billion per annum earnings hole, we need to ask ourselves: what's the actual extent of the mess created by this government's mismanagement of the NBN? Turning to specifics of this levy, the levy places the charge on a narrow base of networks, and in some cases is quite arbitrary in the networks it applies its levy to. For example, the NBN was set up to serve households and small businesses, because this is where market failure for high-speed fibre broadband existed. The enterprise market was well-served and had competition. The NBN wishes to compete in the enterprise market. Good luck to them. We genuinely wish them well. Yet the government is now proposing to tax enterprise networks, despite the fact that the arrival of the NBN is reducing the revenues of the incumbents who were previously competing and serving the market. It highlights the confused logic of this levy. The narrow base concentrates the impact on a few participants, while the revenue the levy raises is, in the broad sweep of things, immaterial to the challenges facing the NBN business case. It will be felt by those who are impacted but will do very little to support broader policy objectives. It's no surprise that the ACCC and the Productivity Commission have criticised the design of this levy. Further, the government is seeking to apply the broadband levy to greenfield networks that have already been deployed. This is despite greenfield networks being in new development estates, where NBN Co has not spent money, has not deployed a network, is not required to deploy a network and is not experiencing revenue leakage. This retrospective application is concerning. Greenfield network businesses are modest in their size and have made capital investments based on certain assumptions. Given the legitimate concerns about the poor design and ineffectiveness of this levy, Labor will propose two key amendments. First, we will be seeking to cap the levy charge at $7.10. The current legislation allows it to increase to $10 per month—to put it another way, $120 per year. Capping it at $7.10 would not permit this to happen. In a scenario in which the levy charge increased to $10 per month, it would be unfair to families and distortionary to the telecommunications market. It remains unclear whether the charge could reach that level, but given the lack of transparency from this government on the costs of the rollout and uncertainty over the number of premises within scope of the levy, the Senate should not be willing to take that chance. This amendment is a prudent safeguard to protect consumers and households from further unintended impacts of the levy. The government has sought to argue that the levy as drafted establishes a sustainable long-term funding mechanism for the non-commercial parts of the NBN network. The NBN's CEO does not sign up to this view, because in October last year he called for a tax on wireless services. The ACCC does not sign up to this view, and the Productivity Commission does not sign up to this view. In its communications market study, the ACCC observed: Greater substitution across technologies would also bring into question the suitability of the RBS charge as a mechanism to fund non-commercial NBN services. This view has also been put by the Productivity Commission in its review of the USO, where it observed: The funding of nbn's non-commercial services should, moreover, not be considered independently of universal service policy reforms. …   …   … The Regional Broadband Scheme is proposed to (at least initially) include only a narrow levy base. In principle, the choice of funding model for non-commercial services should seek to minimise distortions in the telecommunications market, the risk of which is heightened with a narrowly-based long-term industry levy. As such, the Government may need to revisit the merits of alternative funding arrangements for nbn's non-commercial services. Clearly, these two expert bodies are saying this levy will not stand the test of time. By capping the charge at $7.10, Labor is making clear it does not have confidence in the government's arguments either. Labor's view is that the most useful policy function this levy can perform is to establish a price signal that deters the inefficient duplication of fixed-line infrastructure, deters cherry-picking of profitable parts of the NBN footprint and establishes a more level playing field in the market segments where that's appropriate. Labor has consulted broadly with the sector on this principle, and the logic of our approach is respected and understood. The second change to the levy that Labor will propose seeks to provide concession for premiums connected to existing greenfield networks on 1 July 2019. We look forward to having our amendments considered by the Senate. 21:16 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Australian Greens welcome the introduction of the statutory infrastructure provider obligations set out in schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018. The SIP obligations will ensure that Australians have access to high-speed broadband with minimum speed requirements of 25 megabits per second, and there are requirements for SIP services to support voice services on fixed-line and wireless platforms. These requirements are consistent with the Productivity Commission's review of the telecommunications universal service obligation. We strongly support the rollout of the NBN to regional and rural Australia, and we acknowledge the need to cross-subsidise non-commercial services. However, we do not support the implementation of the Regional Broadband Scheme as proposed in schedule 4 of the competition and consumer bill and in the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. As such, I would like the question on the second reading of the bills divided, as I intend to vote for the competition and consumer bill and against the Regional Broadband Scheme charge. The Australian Greens are committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to affordable, high-quality internet services. Fast, reliable broadband has the potential to transform the lives of all the inhabitants of this nation. The NBN is not just a piece of infrastructure. Access to digital networks is a right, and it is incumbent upon government to make it accessible, available and affordable. Australia's internet is lagging behind the rest of the world—this is the stark reality that must confront this government—in both speed and affordability. The Ookla speed test for May 2018, a global index, places Australia at 56th in the world for internet speed, falling behind Panama and Siberia, and well below the global average. Conversely, Australia is ranked eighth in the world for mobile broadband speeds, doubling the global average at 50 megabits per second, versus 30 megabits per second for fixed broadband. Australia ranks 57th in the world for fixed broadband affordability, according to Digital Australia's State of the nation report. The Regional Broadband Scheme proposes a narrowly targeted, technology specific tax which is not robust to changing telecommunications technologies and markets and thus risks distorting competition between technology types. In response to my questioning during budget estimates, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission stated that it would likely have distortionary effects on the market. It also places excessive burden on a narrow segment of this same market. Australians are already struggling to pay for NBN's unaffordable, high prices, and this tax serves to slug them with another $7.10 per month. Both the ACCC and the Productivity Commission have stated that a preferable alternative would be direct budget funding. The Productivity Commission also recommended that the RBS and the funding of NBN non-commercial services should not be considered independently of the telecommunications universal service obligation. The Regional telecommunications review 2015 recommended development of a new broad based consumer communication fund for voice and data services, thus replacing the USO's telecommunications industry levy with a levy to support loss-making regional infrastructure and services, with scope to include subsidies for non-commercial NBN services. Such an overarching regulatory structure would avoid piecemeal and short-term regulatory adjustments by putting a more relevant and comprehensive framework in place. Without a sunset clause, the RBS also risks becoming an entrenched tax that is used for purposes beyond the intentions of the scheme, with cost basis used for RBS pricing already having shifted considerably. The Australian Greens support updating the telecommunications universal service obligation for the 21st century, based on telco needs of Australia now and into the future. We support Australians in rural, regional and remote areas having equitable access to internet and voice services, which is why we support families and businesses having enough data to meet their needs at a fair price, and using Sky Muster technology as a last resort only where no other options are possible. It is why we support extending the Mobile Black Spot Program, and the ACCC broadband monitoring program, to include fixed wireless and satellite services. The Australian Greens support an NBN that is affordable for all Australians without compromising on quality, which is why we support a review of the NBN's pricing structures as well as an update to the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code and the empowering of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. We do not support this short-sighted, narrow-based partial duplication of the USO that will further drive up already unaffordable prices for Australians. The government are, once again, trying to slap a bandaid on a gaping wound rather than fixing the underlying infrastructure servicing needs of all Australians and ensuring that everyone can access a fast, reliable and affordable National Broadband Network. 21:24 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise tonight to speak on the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018. These two bills together give effect to the government's Regional Broadband Scheme. Labor will not be opposing these bills, which together legislate certainty that premises in Australia can continue to access broadband services beyond the initial NBN rollout. The bills also introduce a new telecommunications levy, a broadband tax that will add $84 a year to the bills of up to 400,000 consumers and businesses on non-NBN networks. Given the current state of the economics of the NBN, it's difficult for Labor to oppose this tax outright, but we do consider its imposition to be highly unfortunate. This broadband tax, which will be passed on to consumers, is essentially seeking to undo some of the cost blowouts that have resulted from Mr Turnbull's mishandling of the NBN rollout. As I've said before, the abbreviation 'MTM' is very appropriate because, while it purports to stand for the multi-technology mix, we know what it really means. What it really means is 'Malcolm Turnbull's mess'. And it amazes me that, after years and years in government, those opposite still think they can fool Australians into thinking that Labor is somehow responsible for the NBN mess that the government got themselves into, the mess that has now led to Mr Turnbull imposing his broadband tax. Their efforts are a monumental exercise in historical revisionism and one which would make the Flat Earth Society very, very envious. I'll take a bit of time to remind those listening to proceedings about the history of this issue, just so we can get the facts straight. We know that, in the early 2000s, Australians were calling out for broadband policy. After selling Telstra as a vertically integrated monopoly, with no vision for extending internet access, the Howard government left us in a broadband backwater. And the Nationals, who were supposed to stand up for the bush, failed to push effectively for decent telecommunications in regional Australia. But, as many, many Australians have come to realise, the Nationals are merely a lapdog to their senior coalition partners. As I've pointed out time and time again in this chamber on so many issues, the Nationals have failed to stand up for regional Australia for decades. After 18 failed broadband plans over the course of 12 years—that's 18 failed broadband plans over the course of 12 years—it was left to a Labor government to deliver a national broadband network that would provide universal coverage to regional and remote Australia. The National Broadband Network was, and remains, Australia's largest ever infrastructure project, and it's a policy of which I am extremely proud. Australians would have continued to have pride in all aspects of this project had it not been butchered by those opposite. An important aspect of the NBN was the universal wholesale pricing regime. This would mean that the NBN users in the cities would help to cross-subsidise broadband in higher cost and less profitable regional areas. It would also restore the level playing field in telecommunications that was abandoned by the Howard government with the sale of Telstra. The universal wholesale pricing regime was supported by Labor's original business case for the NBN. Yet we have recently heard news that NBN Co is considering abandoning universal wholesale pricing by introducing a higher charge for 50-megabit plans in the bush. The charge, according to broadband providers, could be as much as 44 per cent higher than for the equivalent fixed-line service in the city. That's outrageous. It comes off the back of NBN Co setting the same wholesale price for 12-, 25- and 50-megabit-per-second plans, which will have the effect of increasing entry-level broadband prices. On top of this, Mr Turnbull now wants to introduce a new broadband tax. The only reason Mr Turnbull needs to introduce this broadband tax is the mess he's made of the NBN, switching from the full fibre rollout for all fixed-line connections to his inferior copper- and HFC-based network. Let's not forget that, when Mr Turnbull was appointed shadow communications minister in Mr Abbott's opposition, the then Leader of the Opposition's instructions to him were to 'demolish the NBN'. That's right; the instructions to him were to 'demolish' the NBN. In government, Mr Turnbull carried out this instruction with great enthusiasm, replacing 21st-century optical fibre to the premises with a hodgepodge of old technologies, including HFC and the existing, decaying copper network. As Prime Minister, he continues to carry out Mr Abbott's instructions to this very day. We were promised an NBN that would cost taxpayers $29.5 billion. The cost now has blown out to $49 billion. Not only will Mr Turnbull's inferior NBN cost $4 billion more to build than Labor's; it will also generate less revenue. We were told Mr Turnbull's second-rate version of the NBN would be rolled out by 2016, and it's now due to be completed by 2020. And what do we get as a result of all these cost blowouts and delays? We get an NBN that cannot deliver the speeds that Australians need. That's what we've got. That's what we are getting: an NBN that cannot deliver the speeds that Australians need and demand, an NBN that leaves Australia's economy mired in the 20th century with average speeds lagging behind nations such as Estonia and Bulgaria. There are no budgeted plans to upgrade the network technology even as far out as 2040. This means that, under the Liberal plans, we're stuck with this dud network for the next 22 years. Senator Urquhart interjecting— Senator BILYK HZB It's a very long time, Senator Urquhart. If the network cannot meet the needs of many broadband customers now, how many will want to purchase an NBN plan in 22 years time? To give you an idea of the impact on revenues, according to NBN Co's own analysis, the government's inferior copper network will cost $200 million more per year to maintain and operate and will generate $300 million per year less in revenue relative to Labor's fibre-to-the-premises network. That's a $500-million-a-year revenue gap. I've said many times in this place before and I will say again that the Turnbull government's decision to base the NBN on outdated technology has severely damaged Australia's competitiveness in the digital economy. As Professor Rod Tucker from the University of Melbourne has said, by the time the NBN rollout is complete, the technology will already be obsolete. Eventually we will catch up, but it will cost us even more billions and many more years of delay, and our economy will be held back for decades. The government's recent thought bubble about rolling out a 5G network is an admission that their flawed, second-rate copper network has comprehensively failed to keep pace with the needs of Australian broadband consumers. Nearly one in three broadband consumers on Mr Turnbull's second-rate copper network can't achieve over 50 megabits per second. Some customers are seen reporting that their fibre-to-the-node NBN connection is slower than their old ADSL service. Yes, they're saying it's slower. A survey by consumer advocacy group CHOICE reported that 60 per cent of broadband customers on the NBN reported issues in the previous six months, including 44 per cent who reported very slow speeds and 42 per cent reporting disconnections, drop-outs and performance issues. A recent survey of business experiences conducted by the NSW Business Chamber found that switching to the NBN was costing small businesses an average of $9,000 in delays, disruptions and loss of sales. Forty-three per cent of the 850 businesses surveyed reported being either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the NBN. So, as we can see, something is really wrong here. Similar stories were told at a forum in Howrah in Hobart that I co-hosted last year alongside shadow minister for communications Michelle Rowland and my Tasmanian Labor colleagues Julie Collins and Brian Mitchell. Among problems residents attending the forum reported were issues such as the performance and reliability of NBN services delivered over the fibre-to-the-node network; disappointment that Mr Turnbull has denied Tasmanian households and businesses a future-proof fibre connection and instead lumped them with poor quality ageing copper; slow speeds; dropouts and variations in service quality, with some questioning why they were being sold NBN plans with service quality and speeds that the network is not capable of delivering to their home; and the lack of accountability and consistent blame-shifting between retail service providers and NBN Co when there are faults. Of course, Tasmania's not unique, and I understand that Ms Rowland has had similar stories reported to her from forums right across Australia. It's because of the problems customers are experiencing with the slow time frame for connections and fault repairs and missed technician appointments that Labor has announced that we would introduce a service guarantee. Labor's service guarantee would provide clear standards for connection and fault repair time frames and establish penalties for underperformance. The outgoing NBN chief, Bill Morrow, knows who's to blame for the network failures, and it seems Mr Morrow's impending retirement has made him somewhat less restrained in telling a few home truths about the NBN. Amongst Mr Morrow's recent pronouncements are that the multi-technology mix is responsible for poor customer experiences with the NBN and that the copper network has led to slower speeds and a higher fault rate. Many people who have been following the NBN rollout will probably roll their eyes at Mr Morrow's exercise in stating the bleeding obvious. But it's a big deal for the chief executive, who was responsible for overseeing the rollout, to make these admissions. As critical as some may be of Mr Morrow's legacy, the fact is that the multi-technology mix was the brainchild of the former communications minister, now Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. Mr Morrow was given the unenviable task of rolling out this mess the best he could—or, to put it another way, he was given a not so pleasantly flavoured sandwich and forced to eat it. It is ironic that prior to the 2013 election Mr Turnbull encouraged other broadband providers to compete directly with the NBN and now he wants to tax the very providers that he encouraged. The proposed levy deters other broadband providers from duplicating NBN infrastructure by rolling out broadband in more profitable areas. In doing so, they will have to make their own contribution to support the obligation that NBN Co has to remote and regional Australia. The ACCC has expressed concerns about this levy, saying: 'Greater substitution across technologies would also bring into question the suitability of the Regional Broadband Scheme charge as a mechanism to fund non-commercial services.' The Productivity Commission has also said this levy should not be introduced until there is a proper reform of the universal service obligation. In its review of the USO the commission observed: The funding of NBN's non-commercial services should, moreover, not be considered independently of universal service policy reforms. And— The Regional Broadband Scheme is proposed to … include only a narrow levy base. In principle, the choice of funding model for non-commercial services should seek to minimise distortions in the telecommunications market, the risk of which is heightened with a narrowly-based long-term industry levy. As such, the Government may need to revisit the merits of alternative funding arrangements for nbn's non-commercial services. So it's clear that there is widespread concern about the poor design of the government's internet levy, which not only increases prices but also seeks to impose the cost burden on a very narrow base. As I said, Labor will not oppose this levy outright, but we will seek to improve the legislation, recognising that it is the Turnbull government's mismanagement of Australia's largest-ever infrastructure project that has necessitated parts of this new broadband tax. Labor recognised, when we commenced the rollout of the NBN, that there was the potential for other broadband providers to compete with the network or to roll out their own infrastructure. But the potential for competition from other providers is greater when this government is using outdated technology to roll out the NBN. Had the government continued to follow Labor's plan to roll out the fibre-to-the-premises NBN, the long-term economics of the project would have stacked up without the need for a new broadband tax. After all, the bulk of revenue to cross-subsidise broadband in regional Australia will come from the fixed-line footprint. If you have a fixed-line service that consists of fibre to the premises, one with reliable connections that can guarantee minimum speeds, then it stands to reason it will generate more revenue than an unreliable, outdated, copper based network. It will preserve an indefinite performance and reliability edge, unlike an outdated copper network. It's Mr Turnbull's broadband tax that makes up the difference, and it would've been completely unnecessary had he adopted Labor's plan and rolled out the network that Australians want and need. Mr Turnbull now owns this tax, and it's for him to explain why, when he and his colleagues want to give big business an $80 billion tax cut, households on non-NBN broadband plans have to pay an extra $84 a year to help prop up his failed, obsolete and inferior network, which is $20 billion over budget and four years behind schedule. I now move to the other aspect of this bill, which is the Statutory Infrastructure Provider regime. This important reform provides Australians with certainty about universal access to high-speed broadband beyond the rollout of the NBN. While Labor initiated this reform almost a decade ago through the statement of expectation and issues to the NBN Co board, the government is now proposing to enshrine it in legislation. We agree that this is a natural step and appropriate, and we will support it. But let's not forget that when the Liberals were in opposition it took them some considerable time to embrace this principle. Demonstrating his ignorance of the importance of broadband, the then opposition leader, Mr Abbott, described Australia's largest infrastructure project as 'essentially a video entertainment system'. A year later, Mr Turnbull was describing the National Broadband Network as 'the most extreme example of state intervention to support broadband' and 'the telecommunications version of Cuba'. To describe the NBN enshrining the notion of universal access to broadband as some kind of communist ideal was clearly out of step with the sentiment of the Australian public. And when those opposite finally embraced the principle of universal access, they didn't do so on their own. They had to be dragged to the realisation, kicking and screaming, by the Australian public, who understood their own need for broadband. Only two years after dismissing the idea of universal access, Mr Turnbull was promising to deliver it, but sooner and at less cost. Well, we know what's happened there, and we can see today that promise isn't going so well for Mr Turnbull or his government. But I welcome the Turnbull government finally embracing the notion of universal access to broadband. Like power, water and phone service, broadband is now recognised as an essential service for households and businesses. Of course, we're still stuck with the legacy of Mr Abbott's 2013 comment that '25 megs is enough for the average household', as five years later this sentiment is continuing to drive the Liberals' broadband policy. Having established the principle of universal access to broadband, Labor will of course support moves for this principle to be legislated. We would, however, encourage those opposite to go a step further and embrace the principle of universal access to fast, 21st-century broadband, a futureproof broadband network that will meet the needs of Australians now and for generations to come. But I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. In the meantime we're stuck with a National Broadband Network that cost more to build than Labor's original plan yet is able to achieve less in terms of speed and applications, a network which, because it is failing economically, has to be propped up by Mr Turnbull's new broadband tax. It's unfortunate that we are where we're at as a result of the Turnbull government's gross mismanagement of the NBN. While the multi-technology-mix egg will be difficult to unscramble, it's not too late for those opposite to admit they got it wrong and to at least start to deploy a 21st-century NBN in the fixed-line areas where design and construction hasn't commenced. 21:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I note that the Senate will shortly be adjourning, so I will begin my remarks and continue them when the debate resumes, which I understand may not be until next week, given the business before the Senate for the remainder of this week. For the many thousands of people listening at home, you'll have to tune back in to hear the remaining 16 minutes of my speech, and I'm pleased about that because it gives me a little bit of time to write the next 16 minutes of my speech! I'll see how I go for the next four minutes. Hopefully we're down to about 3½ minutes now. I'll use the remaining time before the adjournment debate to outline the general purpose of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. These bills have two main objectives, as has already been enunciated by Senator Bilyk. Firstly, they legislate with certainty that all premises in Australia can continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure beyond the NBN rollout. That is an obligation that already exists but, by including it in this legislation, it takes things a step further and gives Australians legislative certainty around that obligation. The second objective of these bills is to introduce a telecommunications levy that will, on our and other people's estimates, add about $84 per year to the bills of up to 400,000 consumers and businesses on non-NBN networks. The first aspect, providing legislative certainty that all premises will be able to continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure, says something about this government's implementation and rollout of the NBN, that it needs to take the additional step of enshrining in legislation the level of certainty that all Australians are entitled to: that they will be able to continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure. In this day and age, we know that having access to high-quality telecommunications, whether it be broadband internet or mobile phone services or other telecommunications services, is the lifeblood of business around the country and globally and is also important for individuals in their own households. It says something about the appalling rollout of the NBN under this government that, to provide Australians with some level of confidence about their access to telecommunications going forward, the government need to now enshrine that in legislation. From a Labor perspective, we don't have any issue with it being enshrined in legislation—and we will be supporting that—but it is a good statement of the level of concern that exists in the Australian community about this government's rollout that it needs to take that additional step. In the second phase of my remarks, whenever we should resume, I'll be happy to provide the Senate with some of the instances that have been brought to my attention by constituents of mine in Queensland—particularly in regional Queensland—about the poor level of service that they have received from the NBN and from telecommunications providers in general. Hopefully, enshrining this level of certainty in legislation will provide regional Queenslanders with the certainty that they have not yet had when accessing telecommunications that they are entitled to in the modern era. The second aspect of these bills is to introduce a telecommunications levy. It is deeply regrettable that, because of this government's botched rollout of the NBN, we now see the need for a regional broadband levy. Labor will have more to say about this in committee. We think that some amendments can be made that will improve what the government is putting forward, but we won't be opposing this outright as we understand that, under this government's rollout, the NBN has become a basket case. Financial difficulties have emerged, and something needs to be done to try to bring that into line. As I travel around Queensland, no matter where you go, I have been amazed how unifying concern and discontent with the NBN is. My electorate office is on the Gold Coast. It is one of the issues that we receive the most complaints about, both from households and businesses alike. When I spend time in Central Queensland, the other area that I'm mainly responsible for, it's the same. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 115 ADJOURNMENT Tasmania: Cultural and Creative Industries 115 21:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I would like to commend Senator Watt on that valiant effort to use his four minutes. Well done there. Look, it is a pleasure to rise on the adjournment tonight. I, like all other senators, have had the good fortune of spending six weeks away from this place during the winter recess and using that time to engage with the communities I represent and work for. Indeed, one of the things I was able to spend my time doing over the winter recess was getting to know Tasmania's arts and creative industries a bit better, something I have to confess I haven't had a great deal to do with. From the work I was able to do with them and the meetings and engagement I undertook, I was able to see the very impressive things that are going on in Tasmania in that sector. Things have changed extensively in the 20 or 30 years since Warner Bros. promoted to the world the Tasmanian devil; that was the one representation of Tasmania when it came to our contribution to the creative sector. It is very different now, with festivals like the Festival of Voices, MONA FOMA, Ten days on the Island and the Cygnet Folk Festival, and galleries like the Museum of Old and New Art, MONA, down in Hobart, and a number of other offerings. Things have changed so much—not to mention the screen and broadcast creative industries and the growth in the number of production facilities and organisations that exist in Tasmania. The cultural and creative sector in our state accounts for at least $216 million of the state's economy annually, which is about 1.7 per cent of gross state product, and it employs approximately two per cent of the employed population, which is a number that's grown about six per cent over the last five years. So, while it's not a large cohort of people employed in this sector, it is one that is growing and indeed one that is very important, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities for younger Tasmanians and for people looking to come to Tasmania from other parts of the country and the world to find employment. The cultural sector and the creative industries are at the heart of support for many other sectors as well. I've spoken about them before in this place. The tourism and hospitality sectors are massive employers, massive economic contributors, particularly to our regions. The culture and creative sectors do a lot to attract visitors to our communities, to Hobart and to other regions right around the state. So the overall contribution is indeed much higher when you factor in what it does to support the growth in the hospitality and tourism sectors. I alluded earlier to the recess from parliament that enables senators and members of the other place to get out into their communities. I took that time to engage with a number of organisations and see what's going on in Tasmania in the cultural and creative sector space. The most exciting part of that, of course, was visiting the set of Rosehaven, which is a great comedy produced by the ABC and filmed exclusively in Tasmania. It was great to head along to the beautiful town of Oatlands, in the Southern Midlands, on a very, very chilly day—I think it was about three degrees when we touched down in Oatlands—and catch up with the two main characters from the show—the Logie-nominated actor Celia Pacquola and of course Tasmania's own Luke McGregor—and catch a bit of the action, see what they were up to there. Having viewed a number of the episodes of the two seasons so far—they're now filming season 3—it was great to see how they promote our state and the quirky nature of it. It is a great promotion of our state. It was great to be with the cast and crew and their producer, who made me feel very welcome on set. They employed 35 full-time Tasmanian practitioners, and also provided a great deal of full-time training for a number of crew positions, which is a great thing for our small-screen industry in Tasmania. They try to use a local workforce where possible—everything from extras to all elements of the crew, which is a great thing, particularly when the industry isn't like it may be in places like Melbourne or Sydney. It's great to note that the national broadcaster's investment in production in Tasmania has more than doubled since 2014-15, and of course Rosehaven, being a significant production, accounts for a fair chunk of that. As I previously suggested, the exposure programs like Rosehaven, which are watched around the world, give to our state something we can't underestimate. In addition to the on-ground direct experience, the employment provided, the economic activity and the exposure these programs generate for our state are great things. I thank the cast and crew of Rosehaven for interacting so well with the locals in communities right across Tasmania, but also for the wonderful way in which they portray our state. Additionally, I was able to catch up with the team at Blue Rocket Studios, an animation studio based out of Hobart. They've recently been awarded a Logie for their production of children's television animation. The Logie they were awarded was for Most Outstanding Children's Program for their 13-part TV series known as Little J and Big Cuz. It's the first Indigenous children's animation and it was produced in English and a number of Aboriginal languages. They're currently producing the second season. It was great to get into their studios and see how they do what they do and see some of the other projects they are working on. I'm sure we will hear about those into the future. Noting the success they've had with Little J and Big Cuz, I'm sure they'll do well with their other productions as well. The director at Blue Rocket Productions, David Gurney, is a very strong and passionate advocate for the Tasmanian screen sector. He saw a great deal of potential in our state being able to contribute in a larger way to the screen industry and to animation, but also to a number of other areas. That's something I'm looking forward to working on: assisting Blue Rocket and other participants in the industry to ensure we can grow this sector in Tasmania. I heard stories about how many people showed interest in moving to Tasmania just to participate in the work of Blue Rocket as opposed to other parts of the country, such as Sydney or Melbourne. It was fascinating to see that we may have a competitive edge over some of the other parts of the country when it comes to attracting people to participate in this part of the creative industries. I also caught up with the team at Wide Angle Tasmania, which is a not-for-profit organisation supporting grassroots participation in the screen industry. I saw their plans for the future and how they intend to support those who want to make a go of things in the screen industry in our state, where we don't have the opportunities and the avenues that perhaps Victoria, New South Wales and maybe even Queensland have. This organisation has run off the smell of an oily rag for some time but does a great job in supporting those who actually do want to make a go of things in Tasmania by creating connections and providing them with opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. They provide equipment to people who are working on small projects themselves. That's part of their revenue stream. The work that they do in supporting the creative industries sector in Tasmania is something I feel very optimistic about. It gives us a great foundation with regard to the future of this industry. While we're seeing things like Rosehaven, Little J and Big Cuz, the work of Blue Rocket Productions and the work of Wide Angle Tasmania, I think we have a bright future in the creative industries sector and the cultural sector as well. It is a growing industry, as I've already said, and it's one I look forward to working with, along with my Tasmanian Liberal Senate colleagues, to grow into the future as part of our wonderful and growing economy in Tasmania. Queensland: Migration, Health Care 116 21:59 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to speak tonight about the opportunities in rural and regional Queensland for expanding and strengthening the settlement of people of migrant and refugee backgrounds. I note that a conference is happening at this moment, today and tomorrow, in Toowoomba, a town that is a great example of taking on board a large number of people from quite a wide diversity of refugee and other migrant backgrounds in the last decade or two, to great success. It's a really positive counterpoint to some of the fact-free, deliberately manufactured racial divisiveness that has been put forward by some in the media and, sadly, some in this parliament in recent times, trying to manufacture and exacerbate racial division, when we have so many examples all around Australia—including, of course, in many parts of Queensland—of communities, both large and small, that have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate the huge contribution of people working together from a big diversity of migrant and refugee backgrounds. I was recently, a couple of weeks ago, in the town of Biloela. I was partly there to support and congratulate the local community, who have continued to campaign after five months in support of a family of Tamil background with two very young girls, aged three and one, both of whom were delivered in the local Biloela Hospital. I met the doctor, also of Tamil background, who delivered at least the younger of those two. That family, who I've spoken about in this place before, were taken away at dawn by a range of armed people from the Border Force and locked up in detention in Melbourne, and that community have continued to rally to support that family and to encourage the minister to give them an ongoing visa and to bring them home to Bilo. It's a great example of a supportive community that just instinctively came together because they had a family living in their midst who were contributing to their community, working in the community, having children in the community and helping build those small regional and rural communities that rely on new settlers, whether from an overseas background or locally born. Whilst I was there, I also met with people from the local chamber of commerce and Biloela Enterprise about all of the other opportunities there and their ongoing desire to have people from migrant and refugee backgrounds—and, of course, everybody else—move to and contribute and work in those communities. Apart from that family I mentioned, I think there are about 40 people of Tamil background with varying degrees of visa status. I met one fellow there—I think he's been in the country for about seven years—who is still on a version of a temporary visa, very much wanting a permanent one, because a person can never properly settle until they have a permanent visa. He's one of many people helping keep the local meatworks open. Others who started working there have moved into other jobs in the community. Also, people of other migrant backgrounds are working in the hospital and in aged care and other allied health related activities. As I'm sure many senators would know and many others would know, were it not for people of migrant background and recent arrivals such as refugees being prepared to live in and work in health facilities, aged-care facilities and lots of other places in small regional and rural towns, those facilities often would close or the services there would be much less reliable and more intermittent than they are. One of the challenges is enabling those communities to have people, whether it's doctors, nurses, midwives, aged-care workers, teachers or other people with varying levels of skills, who are willing to move to, settle in—and particularly have children in—and help build an ongoing future for those communities. I raise that issue because I think it very much directly links to the situation which has started to get some significant attention in Queensland, which is the threat of ongoing closure of more maternity units in rural areas and small regional towns. One which is under immediate threat of closure is in the town of Theodore, which is only 100 kilometres or so a bit further inland from Biloela, which I was just mentioning. There were some very alarming statistics publicised over the weekend—and I believe these are not disputed—which clearly indicated the rate of 23.3 babies in every 1,000 dying in those towns in communities where there are no birthing services, compared to 6.1 babies in rural areas with obstetrics and other birthing services available. That is a pretty clear, stark statistic which translates into real lives and real lives lost. I commend the state health minister for acting immediately to investigate this and see what can be done, but a part of it is clearly an unwillingness to provide sufficient resources. I know it's the refrain of governments at state and federal levels, of all colours, to always say, 'Well, you can't fund everything and you have to make tough choices.' That is certainly true up to a point, but the point is, as we've seen and debated at length in this chamber in recent times, the choices being made by the current government are to give literally billions of dollars of potential revenue over to corporate tax cuts and literally billions more to income tax cuts that will significantly benefit the wealthiest in our community. That's just one example; there are plenty of other examples of policies and subsidies of significant support being provided to benefit big corporations at the expense of communities. We are a wealthy country. We should be able to offer world-class health care to everyone. We are a country that should be able to afford to provide those basic birthing services to rural and regional communities. I accept part of the issue is being able to find people to staff those, and work needs to be done alongside that. That is, in many cases, about providing training, support and incentives for nurses and midwives to work in regional and rural areas. Again, that is a matter of a political choice to invest in providing those incentives and that support for midwives, nurses and other health workers, including doctors where needed, to work in rural areas. It can be also integrated with our migration system, our migration rules and our rules around encouragement for refugee settlement that provide incentives for people with appropriate skills, or the willingness to be trained to get those appropriate skills, to settle and work and provide those services in regional areas. But the bottom line there is the political choice about funding. I think the direct line needs to be drawn repeatedly between the political choice of the parties in the political establishment to adopt policies that repeatedly provide resources or give tax breaks, rebates or tax loopholes to those that are better off rather than investing directly in the community. It doesn't have to be like this. This is a political choice. The statistics show that it is a political choice that is literally leading to deaths. We can be a country that offers world-class health care to everyone. One of the key reasons why we continue to see policy choices that don't deliver world-class health care, affordable housing and other appropriate services to the community is corporate donations. The two parties of the political establishment have taken over $100 million in corporate donations in the past five years, and at the same time we have this underfunding which is leading to people dying whilst the tax breaks are being given over and the corporations are getting the subsidies. That's something that needs to change. We heard some good words today about my colleague Senator Rhiannon and her commitment to political donations reform. I certainly join with continuing to commit to working to get big money and corporate money out of politics altogether. Employment 117 22:09 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland In a few weeks time we will see the fifth anniversary of the election of the coalition government. Whilst some may see that as an opportunity to celebrate, I can assure you, Mr President, that the workers of this country will have no reason to celebrate five years under this coalition government. I think it is definitely the case that, over that period of time, the rights of workers have deteriorated through direct acts by this government to undermine the rights of workers—actions such as setting up the ABCC and the discredited Registered Organisations Commission. And let's not forget this government argued for no increase in the minimum wage. But there are other things that this government has not done. They also explain the deterioration in the rights of workers over that five-year period. This government has seen the rise of precarious employment, labour hire employment, sham contracting and sham enterprise bargaining. All of these things are occurring under the watch of this government, and nothing is being done. This government is totally indifferent to those issues. These, of course, are issues that go to the heart of stagnant wage growth in this country. They explain why we are not seeing the levels of wage growth that we've seen in the past: the rights of workers to argue for wage increases have been diminished under this government. Whilst the government is sitting idly by and doing nothing about some of these fundamental changes that have been occurring to our workplaces, I can assure you, Mr President, and the workers of Australia that the Labor opposition has not been idle. We have been looking at a whole range of policies to take to the next election. One I want to talk about tonight is the 'same job, same pay' policy, which is fairly and squarely aimed at addressing unfair labour hire practices. A Labor government will legislate to ensure that workers employed through labour hire companies will receive the same pay and conditions as people employed directly. Our policy is based on a simple principle: if you're doing the same job, you should get the same pay. I fail to understand how anyone could argue against that principle. At the moment, there are too many workers in Australia who are subject to unfair labour hire practices. I heard some of those stories in Gladstone recently, and I'll talk about that very soon. Unfortunately, for too many workers, we're seeing this cycle of being employed in labour hire companies becoming a way of life. People are trapped in this form of precarious employment, so Labor has announced this policy. It's quite clear, though, that we need to consult with labour hire companies and host employers, and with unions and other stakeholders, on the details of the legislative scheme and the transitional arrangements. This is not going to be a heavy-handed approach, but we do have a fairly clear policy, and I think it's something that workers will welcome. We're also going to introduce a national labour hire licensing scheme to protect workers from exploitation and to provide an important floor on standards of employment. At a time when we see wages growth at record low levels, this is a very important issue. Wages growth is going backwards in real terms. More than half of Australian workers are in non-standard employment, including, as I said, labour hire, part-time work, fixed-term contracts, self-employment—usually in the form of sham contracting arrangements—and casual employment. This is clearly contributing to low wages growth and the erosion of labour's share of GDP. Many listeners may not be aware that Australia actually has one of the highest rates of labour hire in the OECD. An estimated 97 per cent of labour hire employees are engaged as casuals. We all know the story, and we all know people—family and friends—who are in this form of precarious employment. We know how difficult it is for them to pay bills, to apply for home loans and to get rental property. These are all factors that are undermining people's capacity to have secure jobs with decent wages. Only a Shorten Labor government will take action to stamp out the dodgy labour hire companies and ensure workers receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. This is a pretty fundamental issue of importance. Now, I put the question to those listening: what if your boss told you tomorrow that you would have to do the same job, use the same desk or workbench, work the same hours and achieve the same productivity, but from now on you'd be earning less money than the person at the next desk or workbench? How would you feel about that situation? I can assure you that that is a common situation in Central Queensland, and this labour-hire exploitation is out of control. On 25 July I co-hosted a forum on labour hire with Zac Beers, our outstanding Labor candidate for the seat of Flynn. Our special guest was Lisa Chesters, the shadow assistant minister for workplace relations. Zac Beers hit the nail on the head when he said that this issue of workers being sacked and offered their job back on reduced pay, and young people being locked out of the housing market is all over the place. The issue of unfair labour hire is out of control, and urgent action needs to be taken. Coupled with that, of course, is the abuse of 457-style visas. All of these things come together to create a diabolical mixture which leads to subdued wages growth. So, of course, we had a very-well-attended forum on labour hire at the Gladstone Bowls Club. People came out to tell us about their stories and to hear about Labor's plan to stamp out the scourge of dodgy labour-hire practices across Central Queensland. We heard a number of stories that night of how workers are forced to stay quiet about poor conditions and safety issues for fear of not getting work if they speak up; waiting by the phone to hear about work, fearing that a missed call or saying no to a shift would result in weeks of being sent to the end of the queue; how difficult it is for a couple to get by when they're both reliant on casual labour-hire work; and workers taking second-rate pay cheques just to put food on the table for their families. Of course, this wasn't the first time that we had heard about these stories from workers across the Flynn electorate, and Mr O'Dowd, the current member, is also totally indifferent to the plight of workers in his electorate. But in March we hosted a town hall meeting with Mr Shorten, the Labor leader, and once again with Zac Beers, our candidate, and we have put labour hire companies on notice then and now that we will be coming for them. Following the overwhelming response to this issue at our forum with Ms Chesters, we also asked the shadow minister for trade and investment, Jason Clare, to come up to Gladstone and to sit down with local union representatives and workers affected by dodgy labour-hire arrangements. I was pleased to co-host a roundtable on 1 August at the Gladstone Library. This is an issue of extreme concern, and we need a federal Labor government to protect the rights of our workers, particularly at a time of stagnating wages growth, as I indicated. All of these issues lead to a contribution to increasing inequality, particularly in our regional communities. We are at a crossroads in this country; we can become either more equal or less equal, and I'm committed to shining a spotlight on this issue of inequality and the inaction of the coalition government. In my role as Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, this year I initiated an inquiry into regional inequality. The inquiry has already received 124 submissions from right across the country, close to a quarter of them from Queensland, where inequality is biting hard. I'm very pleased to announce today that the inquiry will be coming to Emerald in Queensland on 29 August 2018 for its first public hearing. We will be hearing from a range of stakeholders: universities, regional councils and other groups, and, I hope, workers as well. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 22:19 DOCUMENTS 119 DOCUMENTS Tabling 119 DOCUMENTS 127 DOCUMENTS Tabling 127