DOCUMENTS

2018-11-12 45 1 7 Senate 0 1

Monday, 12 November 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 Education and Employment References Committee 1 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. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 10:01 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills: No. 49 Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 No. 94 A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 [No. 2]. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 1

Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 10:02 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I am speaking in continuation on this private senator's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, which I suspect we might even vote on this morning. It seeks to draw attention to the issue of inequality in our country. Before I get to the substantive matter of whether or not there are or are not rising levels of inequality in Australia, I think it's important to revisit the issue of whether the technical elements of this bill are, in fact, correct or flawed. In my earlier contribution some weeks ago, I drew the attention of the Senate to my observation that the technical elements of this bill were flawed, for two primary reasons. First, I think it is important—and the bill does draw this out—to recognise the great work that the Productivity Commission does in our country quite generally. Later today, perhaps even this morning, the Senate will debate the government's legislation that seeks to reform the goods and services tax distribution arrangements in our country. That is a debate that I know you, Deputy President, are very familiar with, coming from Western Australia—and I see Senator Sterle in the chamber as well. When we think about the elements over the last few years that led to such a significant revision in our GST distribution arrangements, it was because of the very, very good work that the Productivity Commission had done, both in its interim report and in its final report, which provided a pathway to what was once regarded as an intransigent issue with regard to federal-state financial relations in our country. Where Senator McAllister's private senator's bill is correct is in recognising the important work that the Productivity Commission does—indeed, the transformational work that the Productivity Commission does. I, for one, along with many other senators, I am sure, am someone who does believe that the Productivity Commission can be trusted with significant jobs of inquiry using at its core the importance of an evidence based approach to coming up with alternative policy propositions that governments and, indeed, oppositions might like to take up. The second element, of course, is that the bill also proposes that the Productivity Commission be charged with the task of doing the inquiry with regard to inequality and that it be given the responsibility to do that review over a significant period of time. But I do want to highlight one particular point in this debate: that the recent independent review of the Parliamentary Budget Office which was done as part of an inquiry that was established by the JCPAA made a very powerful recommendation—one that I think the government should embrace over the next six or seven months, and one that I hope future governments might give time to consider. That is whether or not the intergenerational report that is done by governments every five years should, in actual fact, be entrusted to the Parliamentary Budget Office and not to executive government or the government of the time. The reason why I say that inquiry is one that is worthy of very, very detailed consideration is that, when we think about the importance of the intergenerational report for our country and shaping future policy decisions around population issues and future taxation issues, I think it's a fair observation to say that often the good work—the very important work—that the intergenerational report does and the evidence it paints for our country often gets lost because it is a document that is owned by government rather than being independently owned by an office like the Parliamentary Budget Office. If it were to be owned by the Parliamentary Budget Office, I think that the information that's contained in that intergenerational report would be more readily used by stakeholders across the Australian community and would be more readily used and endorsed by governments and opposition parties in framing a more comprehensive policy approach to a whole variety of issues that confront our country not over the immediate term but over the medium and longer term. That is something that, while not specifically addressed in this private senator's bill, is a matter that I think does deserve careful consideration, perhaps again by the JCPAA, which is the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and most certainly by this government. I hope it's something the new Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, will put his mind to over coming months. I think it's an important way to shift the focus from what parliaments, governments and politicians often get criticised for, which is having too short-term a focus on policy development and policy implementation, and shift it to a more medium- to longer-term policy approach. But the substantive issue that we're discussing this morning is whether or not inequality in our country has been increasing or whether or not inequality in our country has actually remained stable. I will talk about the issue of inequality briefly in a moment, but, in discussing whether or not inequality has remained stable or perhaps even decreased in our country, that is not to excuse the very important work that does need to be done to make sure we are constantly addressing issues of workforce participation, making sure that young people get jobs in our country and making sure that women have an opportunity to participate in the country. So debating the point of inequality is not to excuse the very real issues and very real challenges that exist in our economy. We should make sure that Australians, irrespective of where they come from, irrespective of where they live, irrespective of their age and irrespective of their gender, have an opportunity to participate to the fullest extent in the Australian economy. We know that if people get to participate in the economy—that is, they have a job; they're able to save—then they're able to enjoy much of the prosperity, they're able to raise families and they're able to start businesses. And that, of course, is a critical element in what we're discussing. If we turn to the substantive point—whether or not inequality in our country has been increasing or has remained stable, or whether or not it might just be part of the sloganeering that we hear from the Australian Labor Party as we move closer to a general election next year and whether or not the evidence actually supports the sloganeering—I will be arguing briefly, in the short time available to me, that the sloganeering is not substantiated and not supported by the evidence. I think the first evidence base, if you like, that I'd like to turn to is the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, commonly known as the HILDA survey. The HILDA survey, released in July 2018, just this year, found that relative poverty is at the lowest point in the history of the survey, whilst absolute poverty remains close to record lows. That's the evidence. Whether or not inequality is on the rise in this country or has remained stable—the answer to that question is in the evidence. It's in the HILDA survey released in July 2018. It said that relative poverty in our country is at the lowest point in the history of the survey, whilst absolute poverty remains close to record lows. Again, that's not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of issues of inequality in our country, but, in terms of what the current position is, what the current challenge is, the HILDA survey has been quite conclusive. The survey goes on to say that in the period from 2001 to 2016 the percentage of the population in absolute poverty decreased by approximately 70 per cent, from 12.6 per cent to 3.6 per cent, while the percentage in relative poverty—that is, with a poverty line set at 50 per cent of median income—fell from 12.6 per cent to 9.4 per cent. I'll be the first to recognise that it didn't say that poverty has gone, that poverty has been eradicated in our country, because, of course, we know that wouldn't be a true statement. But what it does say and what it makes very clear—the evidence makes it very, very clear—is that poverty has been on the decline in our country, and that's something that should be rewarded. It goes on to say that recent data supports the notion that some income inequality measures in Australia have stabilised since the global financial crisis. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Gini coefficient for income inequality fell from 0.33 in 2013-14 to 0.32 in 2015-16, after growing in the lead-up to the global financial crisis, peaking at 0.33 in 2007-08. So, the most important and reliable source of evidence, the HILDA survey, makes it very, very clear to us that poverty remains close to record levels in our country. We can think about why that is. What are the structural features in the Australian economy that allow that to happen? I think it's fair to say that there are a number of elements that have given rise to that very, very stable outcome. The first and most obvious is the sustained growth that has been delivered significantly to Australians over the last 30 years. Sustained episodes of strong economic growth have allowed Australians across the community to enjoy high levels of prosperity. Importantly—and I think it's something that most people in this chamber would agree with—Australia's progressive tax and highly targeted transfer system have substantially reduced inequality, meaning that those who are asked to pay tax in our country are those who are most able to earn and accommodate that tax. But, also, our social security system arrangements are very well targeted, meaning taxpayers' money goes to support those who are most in need in our community. Another structural feature of the Australian economy that I think has helped to stabilise and even decrease those levels of inequality has been the fact that economic mobility in our country is very high, meaning that Australians, during the course of their lifetimes, during the course of their working lives, have been able to move across income distribution scales. That's an important structural feature of the Australian economy that allows issues of inequality to be constantly managed and constantly addressed. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean we should be blind or ignorant to the fact some Australians might find themselves in periods of economic disadvantage or dislocation as the economy changes, but we can have a mature, sensible, evidence based conversation about inequality while, at the same time, recognising that for some Australians, at particular points in their working life, things might get a little bit difficult. And we have a transfer system or social security system that allows those people to be properly looked after and hopefully return to work. Of course, there's been a significant development in the time that we've been debating this private senator's bill, which has been probably over the last few months. The Productivity Commission itself, in the last few months, released its own report to say that inequality in our country was not the problem that some people were trying to make it out to be. Indeed, the Productivity Commission report was conclusive. It received a tremendous amount of publicity through The Australian newspaper, The Australian Financial Review and other media sources. It was very, very clear about inequality in our country. The evidence of the HILDA survey was released in July 2018, but the survey was conducted in the period before that. But then, of course, added to that were the comments by the Productivity Commission chairman, Peter Harris, who has since retired, when he said that inequality in our country was not the issue that some Labor members of parliament had tried to make it out to be. What that means is that the parliament's attention is focused on issues where there is no evidence. It means the parliament's attention is not focused on the areas where there does deserve to be greater conversation, greater discussion and greater ideas with regard to possible policy improvements. I want to quote briefly, if I may, from The Australian Financial Review. It was an opinion piece published on 4 September 2018 in The Australian Financial Review by Mr Brendan Rynne, who is the chief economist at the KPMG, a renowned consulting firm in Australia. I want to read into the Hansard not only what he had to say with regard to the issue of inequality in our country and what he had to say with regard to the Productivity Commission report but also what he had to say with regard to the KPMG's Economics and Tax Centre report that it released in April 2017, which specifically looked at the issue of income inequality in our country. Mr Rynne said in his opinion piece of September 2018 that, like the Productivity Commission report, KPMG's own report, the Economics and Tax Centre report of April 2017 titled Financial stress in Australian households: 'the haves', 'the have-nots', 'the taxed-nots' and 'the have-nothings', 'found that inequality in Australia has been relatively stable, and our tax and transfer system does a good job in equalising incomes between rich and the poor across the nation.' He went on to say: Both of these studies have shown the proportion of Australian households living in poverty has not materially worsened over the past three decades; the economic prosperity we as a nation have enjoyed since then has been shared between everyone, and not just captured by the wealthiest. Depending on how you measure it, growth in income inequality in Australia has, at worst, been equal to the OECD average, or at best, been virtually zero. That's worth repeating: the chief economist at the KPMG—not a Labor senator, not a coalition senator but an independent—said: Depending on how you measure it, growth in income inequality in Australia has, at worst, been equal to the OECD average, or at best, been virtually zero. He went on to say: This means income inequality has stayed constant in Australia while in the— (Time expired) 10:19 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I rise to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. Inequality has become the new rallying cry of the Left as they continue to peddle the politics of greed, envy and division. We've got a Labor Party here in Australia who have looked across to what Jeremy Corbyn is up to in the United Kingdom, with his politics of envy, with his views on British society and the British state, and they've gone, 'Yes, we'll have some of that; we'll bring that here to Australia.' It's ironic that the Labor Party preach to us about inequality while they oppose government measures that give Australians the hand up they require. With Bill Shorten's Labor Party it's always about the handout, not the hand up. It's always about having another review, another study. It's not about what we can do to grow the economy. This modern Labor Party, under Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, is not like the Labor Party of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating. It is a different beast. I may not have liked Paul Keating as Prime Minister when I had reached the dizzying heights of president of the Griffith University Liberal Club—our rallying cry back in 1993 and 1996 was about kicking out Paul Keating, and we finally did that in 1996—but under Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Keating Labor did focus on market based reforms to improve the Australian economy. It is sad that we will not be able to say the same about Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and the current Labor Party. With Labor it's always about taxing the rich, but now it's also about taxing the elderly. We've got a Labor Party who want to tax those who want an investment property. We've got a Labor Party who don't want to give out tax cuts. They want to make the poor poorer. They want to make sure the poor take a handout from government. They don't want the poor to get on that aspirational ladder, to start and grow a business, to start and grow a family, to help grow Australia. What they want to do is protect the trade unions in Australia. This is a segment of the community whose membership rate, increasingly, is going down. In the private sector, just over one in 10 workers are members of a trade union. Why is that? It is because workers recognise that the way to get ahead is not by having this third-party industrial organisation, these dinosaur-era trade unions, trying to negotiate on their behalf. They recognise that unions have forgotten what they're there for. Unions have become just a campaign arm of the Labor Party. They are not standing up for the workers. They use money from the workers to try and get Labor elected and try and keep Labor in power. That is very sad. The Productivity Commission, funnily enough, has just done a stocktake of the latest and most complete evidence on inequality. They have found that inequality has decreased since the global financial crisis. One of the main reasons for this is that this country has had 27 years of consecutive economic growth. That is a world record for a developed economy. For 27 years since 1991, since the recession we had to have—when Paul Keating drove the economy into the ground—we've had an economy that has been growing. It has largely been thanks to the economic stewardship of Mr Howard and Mr Costello, in terms of the work they did building on many of the reforms of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. But the work of the John Howard-Peter Costello government between 1996 and 2007, for 11 years, is something that all Australians, regardless of their political allegiance—whether they're a member of the Greens, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the Labor Party or a troglodyte party that I don't know the name of—should be proud, in terms of growing the Australian economy. We were able to have that economic growth notwithstanding the best efforts of those economic troglodytes in Labor. It was when we had Wayne Swan, that noted economist/thespian/union official, who was Treasurer of this country for a long period—notwithstanding his best efforts to ruin the economy. We should not forget that, when Mr Howard was asked by the Australian people in 2007 to update his CV, Australia had no debt whatsoever. In fact, we had money in the bank. It took Labor just under six years to spend all the money in the bank and also rack up over $500 billion of debt. Notwithstanding those efforts, because of the work of Mr Howard and Mr Costello we still had economic growth. Since the 2013 election, which Mr Abbott and the coalition won, we have been able to continue that economic growth. We've done that through making sure we try to live within our means and making sure that government, where there is a need for government, is small but good; it shouldn't be large and wasteful. We also need to make sure that taxes are as low as possible. We on this side of the chamber believe that the individuals, families and business owners know best how to spend their money, and they will act in the interests of themselves, their families, their business and their communities in terms of how they spend that money. We think that they know best in terms of spending the money rather than allowing government to spend money and continually increase taxes. The Productivity Commission found that there is a high degree of economic mobility in Australia, including a high degree of economic opportunity. This economic growth has delivered significantly improved living standards for the average Australian in every income segment of the economy. We've all been growing; as the Australian economy has grown, we've all grown. In fact, economic mobility in Australia is higher than in most other OECD countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. This is because our progressive tax system and our broad social safety net, our welfare system, are working together to drive inequality down. The government's plan for a stronger economy is working, and it is helping to deliver a stronger economy for all Australians. How is it doing this? It is doing it through tax relief or, as I prefer to say, tax cuts—tax cuts to encourage and reward working Australians, tax cuts that keep backing businesses to invest in and create more jobs. We should not forget that, since 2013, a million jobs have been created in the Australian economy. We all want to decrease inequality and we all want to get rid of poverty, and the best way to do that is not by having the Productivity Commission do another study, which is effectively what this bill would propose, but by creating jobs. It is about people working for money. It is about people actually paying taxes that then go back into helping that social safety net. By doing that, it guarantees the essential services Australians rely on. We're also growing this economy by keeping Australians safe. We are making sure that our borders are secure. We are making sure that we have an immigration system in which we decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come. We decide who comes to this country, what skills they have and how they can help grow Australia. We've also got to make sure that the government lives within its means. The government is delivering on its plan to get the budget back into the black sooner, with the reforms we've made, and also to start paying back debt. One of the biggest roadblocks to inequality in Australia will be government debt. Money we're spending on interest repayments is money that is not going into essential social services. Money that is going into paying interest on government debt is money that is not cutting taxes. We should never forget what Labor did to this economy in the period they were in power between 2007 and 2013. We went from zero debt in 2007 to almost half a trillion dollars of debt in 2013. The core function of the Productivity Commission is to conduct public inquiries at the request of the Australian government on key policy or regulatory issues bearing on Australia's economic performance and community wellbeing. There is nothing preventing the commission from research and investigation into inequality or its impacts upon community, wellbeing or economic performance. In fact, that's what it's just done. Australia has a progressive tax system. It has a broad social safety net, and our welfare system is one of the most targeted in the world. There's also been wide reform of our age pension system to give more to those on the lowest incomes. We know that the best way to help Australians get ahead is to ensure that every Australian who can work is able to get a decent job. That is why our entire plan is targeted at growing the economy, getting more Australians into work and seeing incomes increase right across Australia. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, and Labor believe that for some to do better others must do worse. We do not believe that. We think we can all do better. We think that by growing the economy all Australians can rise. Bill Shorten and Labor want to increase taxes and punish the job-creating parts of our economy, and that is a tragedy. The main thing we're doing to improve income inequality is jobs generation, because nothing helps people more than getting a job. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, called 'HILDA' for short, released in July this year found that relative poverty is at its lowest point in the history of the survey, while absolute poverty remains close to record lows. From 2001 to 2016 the percentage of the population living in absolute poverty decreased by approximately 70 per cent, from 12.6 per cent to 3.6 per cent. Meanwhile, the percentage living in relative poverty—and that's with the poverty line set at 50 per cent of the median income—fell from 12.6 per cent to 9.4 per cent. Recent data supported the notion that some income inequality measures in Australia have stabilised since the global financial crisis. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Gini coefficient, which is used to gauge economic inequality, fell from 0.33 in 2013-14 to 0.323 in 2015-16, after growing in the lead-up to the global financial crisis and peaking at 0.336 in 2007-08. In case Labor has forgotten, in that instance lower is better. The HILDA survey estimated that there has been little change in income inequality between 2001 and 2016, with the Gini coefficient remaining at approximately 0.3 over the 15-year period. In 2016 the Gini coefficient was at its lowest level since 2005. In 2015-16 a total of 3.6 million Australian households received more in government payments than they paid in income taxes. Therefore, around 40 per cent of households do not pay any net tax after benefits. By contrast, in 2015-16 the top 10 per cent of taxpayers paid 45 per cent of total personal income tax. It's disappointing coming to this debate, because Labor lack credibility on this topic. They have abandoned any pretence of fairness and of taking real action to reduce poverty in Australia. They want to play politics with it. They fail to understand that the best way to address inequality in our society is by economic means. It's not by doing another study, it's not by raising taxes, it's not by taxing one element of the population to subsidise another element of the population and it's not by adopting the Venezuela model of just taxing and taxing and taxing. The best way to decrease inequality is to make sure Australians have an economy that is growing, an economy where businesses will put on new workers, an economy where workers can decide that they want to start their own business. In Australia we sometimes forget that every large business in Australia started off somewhere small. We forget that businesses like Qantas, in my home state of Queensland, started off in a shed in Longreach when it was the Queensland and Northern Territory Air Service. We forget that that is how that massive business started off. We forget that Coles started off with a single corner store and is now one of the giants of the Australian retail sector. We forget the same with Myer, which started off with a single store. So many Australian business names started off with someone who had been a worker deciding they wanted to start their own business, and they wanted to start their own business because they wanted to a get ahead. They wanted to get ahead for themselves, for their families and for the community. By doing that, they employed more people. By employing more people, we get them out of the poverty trap. We get them out of being reliant on welfare from the government. Even though we do need welfare, we do need to have that safety net for people, we want to make sure they can get ahead and have a job. Labor's alternative plan for growing the economy is to put $70 billion of extra income tax on Australians. They don't want to have tax cuts for businesses. They will come to the table when they get shamed into it before the election. But let's see, if they ever win an election again in this country, what they will do. We got a pre-taste with what they did between 2007 and 2013. And, heavens forbid, if we fail to win the next election, and Bill Shorten becomes Prime Minister, we will have all these economic giants who sit on the opposition frontbench, all these people with their extensive business experience! This might be a fun fact for people to know who might be listening at home: the number of people in the Labor frontbench—there might be an exception here—or indeed on the backbench with business experience is very limited. And that is sad because small businesses and those who work for big, small or medium-sized businesses—but particularly small businesses—do so much for Australia. My fear is that Labor do not understand that small business is the best way for people to get ahead, for that person who has that dream, who sees that empty shop in the main street. My office is in Nambour in Queensland. There are people always wanting to see an empty shop and start a small business and grow it, to make sure they can get their family ahead. And it is tough. But doing another study, doing another report, raising taxes or getting Canberra to tell people what is best for them are not the ways to do it. The best way to do it is to empower people to get ahead. It was Labor who opposed our tough measures to crack down on multinational tax avoiders when they opposed the 2015 multinational anti-avoidance legislation. One of their many great shames—they have a lot of great shames—was to have voted for leaving $2 billion in the pockets of multinationals instead of supporting our efforts to deliver it to the budget bottom line, funding essential services for Australians. It is Labor who, by voting against the enterprise tax plan, is opposing the Liberal-National government's efforts to boost investment, increase earnings and grow the economy. It is a Labor who have a plan for higher taxes and higher deficits. At the 2016 election, the Parliamentary Budget Office confirmed that Labor's election commitments would have resulted in higher deficits to the tune of $16.5 billion. Higher taxes, higher debt and higher deficits are the worst prescription you can write for the Australian economy. Labor are a AAA threat to our AAA credit rating: Labor do not have one policy that would help one business invest one dollar or create one job. On housing, Labor's only plan is for higher taxes. We all know that higher taxes don't build houses. Labor's plan is to tax more so they can dole more out for their welfare spending increases, and that is wrong. The best form of welfare, the best way to fight income inequality, is actually a job. 10:39 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. I sat here and listened to senators, most recently Senator Smith, talking about inequality and poverty in this country, quoting figures, for example, from the Productivity Commission report on income inequality. While there was some very useful data in that report, what I'm deeply concerned about is quoting the Productivity Commission and the misinterpretation of some of the issues that came up in the Productivity Commission report on inequality, and also quoting the HILDA data and the Gini coefficient. When you actually look into the issues around inequality, you can mask the impact on particular cohorts of Australians who certainly are not doing better. If you look at the figures in terms of the concentration of wealth in this country, you see that in fact the situation isn't as rosy as the government likes to paint it. If you look at the fact that Australia is considered by many now to be the second wealthiest country in the world, poverty rates in this country remain very high. We've just gone through Anti-Poverty Week in October, the week before estimates. When we were looking at Anti-Poverty Week we heard how poverty is affecting so many Australians. Yet you get up here and listen to the government senators and you would think everything was sweet. They're ignoring the fact that poverty rates are remaining stubbornly high, with around three million Australians who are suffering deprivation and do not have a good quality of life. There are three million people in Australia living below the poverty line, of whom 739,000 are children. Inequality is baked into our system. When you look at the income share of the top one per cent in Australia, it has doubled. The top 20 per cent now own half of Australia's total wealth. That concentration is growing at a rate that is one of the highest in the world. If you look at the recent Productivity Commission report, the way some people are interpreting it suggests that inequality hasn't got any worse in recent years, based on analysis that basically compares the incomes of the highest decile and the lowest decile—in other words, the bottom 10 per cent versus the middle versus the top 10 per cent. The problem with this particular methodology is that it masks what's going on in the analysis for specific vulnerable groups—those vulnerable groups that I was talking about. It is also completely at odds with the reports that you get from the front-line services—Foodbank, for example. I'm going to come back to Foodbank, because we've just heard that it has had its funding cut again. If you look at some of the figures from that report and some of the other figures that are quoted, particularly when the Gini coefficient is quoted—it is often misquoted, and it is quite a difficult coefficient to understand—you look at what happened when the age pension increased. I am not for one minute saying that that was not a good outcome. It was a good outcome when the Rudd government increased the age pension. It was something that the Greens had been campaigning for; Senator Bob Brown in particular had been campaigning for it for a long time. Because there were so many age pensions that got that very needed boost, it masked some of the impacts on some of those other vulnerable groups moving more and more into poverty. That increase made the figures look a lot better for that particular group of people that had been living in poverty. Given that we also have a much better indexation rate for the age pension, that has helped that group of people deal with poverty better. That's not to say there are not aged pensioners living in poverty, because there are, particularly if you are a single woman. A lot of them are really struggling as they move into older age, particularly those who are unemployed and have used up their savings. They are moving onto the age pension in poverty. Basically, it's masking those who are unemployed, single parents and those with a disability who should be on the disability support pension but are in fact on Newstart because of the change in the eligibility tables. Age pensioners have been better off over the term that we've been talking about—from the early noughties through to now—because of that increase, but the government is trying to wipe the slate and say, 'People aren't living in poverty anymore.' It's just not true. That is skewing the figures and masking the fact that, if you are living on Newstart, you are living in poverty. We have to raise the rate of Newstart by $75 a week. There have been a number of very learned articles about the fact that it is easy to misquote the figures to make them look better without looking at those vulnerable cohorts who are really struggling, such as those on Newstart and single parents. We know from analysis that the poverty rate of children of single parents—and we know that the bulk of those are single mothers—has significantly increased since single mothers were dropped off parenting payment single onto Newstart. I promised I would make this contribution short, but let's quickly look at, for example, the stats coming through from Foodbank. Their hunger report was released just a couple of weeks ago. The number of people that they are servicing went up five per cent in the 12 months from 2017 to 2018. There has been an increased call for their services. They are providing a valuable service to feed those people who aren't able to put food on the table, because they are living in poverty. And what has this government done? It has cut their funding again. It is outrageous. You only have to visit their services, which I did recently, to see what an excellent job they do and see how they are supporting vulnerable families who are trying to get by on particularly Newstart, the disability support pension and the age pension. Families are struggling on casual part-time work. They are not earning enough to be able to put food on the table. Foodbank are providing that service. They are supporting people who are living in poverty. To imply that this country does not have an issue with inequality is simply ignoring or juggling the facts to make them fit their story. This country needs to wake up to the fact that we have an increasing problem with poverty and we have an increasing problem with inequality. Those who are trying to survive on extremely low incomes and on Newstart in particular are doing it very tough. If you just look at the proper figures and at those vulnerable groups, you will see that this country has a very significant issue with inequality. 10:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I want to thank all my colleagues for their useful contributions to this debate on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. This is a debate we should have more often. It's a shame that, at a time of income stagnation and rising inequality, globally and here, this is one of the few real opportunities that the Senate has been given to debate these issues, and it's only doing so because there is a private senator's bill before us, not because of a government bill to address these issues. Where is the government's legislation addressing income stagnation? What is their plan to address living conditions for Australians? What is their plan to tackle the cost of living? I'm not sure and I don't actually think they know either. Over the course of this debate, colleagues opposite have spent some time explaining why they don't think it is necessary to have the Productivity Commission regularly and routinely examine inequality as part of its work. I want to review some of these comments because this debate has been on foot for some time and a lot has changed in the intervening period. One senator said: I am thankful for the opportunity this private senator's bill provides me to speak a little about the Turnbull coalition government's program to reduce income inequality in this country. One of the coalition's flagship policies is of course the enterprise tax plan. That was in February this year. There are three things clearly wrong with this statement: it's no longer the Turnbull government, they don't have a program to reduce income inequality, and the enterprise tax plan is no longer one of the coalition's flagship policies. A number of those opposite, during the course of the debate, spoke about their preference for reducing the cost of living for average Australians rather than addressing questions of distribution. One senator opposite said: First and foremost, this government is tackling the cost-of-living pressures on Australian households. … On the energy front, the National Energy Guarantee, unveiled by the Minister for the Environment and Energy in October last year, will further ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian households, with expected savings of up to $400 per year on their energy bills. There is another problem with that statement, because, of course, there is now no National Energy Guarantee. The government's figures of $400-a-year savings were always a bit rubbery. Now, however, they're entirely hypothetical. It appears the only climate or energy policy this government has is Direct Action, and that is a policy that should have expired along with the Abbott government. The only policy they have to reduce electricity prices was to have Minister Angus Taylor ask power retailers to do it—to ask nicely. As he found out last week, that is a strategy that doesn't work. Power retailers have refused to provide the lower rates by 1 January as demanded by the minister. Despite the absence of any program to address inequality or the cost of living pressures or wage stagnation, a number of those opposite opposed the bill on the basis that it was better to take action rather than commission another report. One senator said: Directing the Productivity Commission to undertake this analysis and provide a report to government is going to do nothing, other than allow us to line the shelves in our offices with yet another report that may well never see the light of day, that will just gather dust and that will not make a jot of difference to the lives of those people we're talking about now. That sentiment fundamentally misunderstands the nature of policy development. Reports shouldn't line shelves and gather dust. That's not why we commission reports. They should be read. They should be understood. They should be used to inform decision-making. Yes, action is important, but so is understanding the problem. Perhaps this explains some of the struggles that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have had in developing coherent policies: they don't value or understand evidence, and, as a consequence, they are unable to move in an organised way through cogent decision-making. It is encouraging to see that the Productivity Commission has in fact already undertaken some of the work outlined in this bill. In August this year, the PC released a research paper on rising inequality. It's a useful first look at inequality that I don't think has been properly digested by Canberra. What does the report tell us about the state of inequality in Australia? It tells us that inequality has been rising over the last 30 years. It tells us that our progressive tax and transfer system has been a substantial factor in reducing inequality, typically lowering income inequality by around 30 per cent, and that government-funded services like health, education and public housing have an additional equalising effect. This is a positive story about how the role of government can deliver for Australians. Sound monetary, economic and social policies can and do reduce inequality. We know we have the levers we need to make change. However, the PC report also tells us a story of persistent and entrenched inequality and disadvantage. Shockingly, despite 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the poverty rate hasn't decreased. That's nothing to pat ourselves on the back about. We've had 27 years of economic growth as a country, and what have we done for the poorest Australians? Not a great deal. According to the report, around three per cent of Australians are living in continuous poverty. Some Australians move in and out, but there is a core group of around 700,000 people that are in continuous poverty. I invite those opposite to consider what that might actually be like. The commission has, in fact, reported that poverty in Australia is increasing. This is essential information that governments need for assessing the state of inequality in Australia, and that is the point of this bill—to require the PC to regularly produce this information and to ensure that when they are doing their other work they have regard to the impact of other decisions on inequality in our society. What is it that the PC recommends we do about inequality? During his address to the National Press Club about the report, the commissioner didn't talk about corporate tax reform as a solution to inequality and entrenched disadvantage; instead, he noted the very low rates of income growth. He talked about productivity growth and pointed to three key areas from the Productivity Commission's Shifting the dial report last year. These areas were higher workforce participation and personal wellbeing, through preventing chronic disease; more adaptable workforce skills, through practical improvements to secondary and tertiary teaching; and reducing the number and complexity of overly restrictive planning and zoning restrictions, to make it cheaper and easier to live and work in our congested cities. Those are ideas for economic reform that we don't hear spoken about here. Despite the fact that our premier economic institution raises these, advances them, it is of no interest, apparently, to those opposite, who continue to hang onto the outdated policy prescriptions they worked up in the mid-1980s and are unable to let go of. None of those opposite mentioned any of these issues in their contributions. Senator McGrath suggested that we need to open up property investment for those in poverty and that tax concessions for property investment were really critical in addressing disadvantage. What nonsense. You'd be laughing if it weren't so offensive to the 700,000 people living in continuous poverty. There's not just a moral imperative to take serious action in addressing poverty and inequality. It is also likely to have an impact on our economic performance. That is something the Productivity Commission would be asked to consider through its work as a result of the passage of this bill. There is no fixed divide between social and economic policy. It is a porous relationship. When we all do well together our economy does well also. Back in 2012, the BCA, the ACTU and ACOSS released a joint statement and they committed to work collaboratively to support Australians disadvantaged in the labour market. This statement made the argument that there was a level of income support required for jobseekers to allow them to live decently and respond to job opportunities, and below a certain level of income it impedes jobseekers' ability to get into work. It didn't just make the social argument; it made the economic argument too. It said that in doing so we would provide employers with access to workers who had the skills they needed in the workforce. More recently, that's been built upon by a Deloitte and ACOSS report. It looked at the economic impact of raising the Newstart rate by about $75 a week. They estimate that the immediate stimulus provided by a decision of that kind would produce an additional 12,000 jobs in the first year. Reforms in social policy can have a direct impact on the economic outcomes of a community. Equally, economic reforms can affect social outcomes—for example, people's health and wellbeing and their ability to participate meaningfully in their community. What would a comprehensive response to poverty from a federal government look like? You'd start with action to address income. It's not reasonable that so many people who are working still don't have enough money to feed their families. I went out to Foodbank's warehouse recently in Glendenning. They make the point that of the people they help each month they're not just helping the unemployed and the homeless; their large-scale survey suggests that 20 per cent of people who are in part-time or casual work experienced issues accessing food in the last year. This is not because people are failing to manage their budgets or just need a little bit more advice about income management. There is a working poor, people going to work who cannot feed their families. And the payment system needs to be examined. In the case of Newstart, we will conduct a root-and-branch review of the payment system, should we form government, because we know that the rate is too low. We also need to undertake action to improve services. The Productivity Commission has made it very clear that services like health and education—those universal services—make a great deal of difference in ameliorating inequality in this country. That's why Labor, should we form government, are planning a very significant investment in public education, putting back all the money recommended by Mr Gonski and ripped out by the government over the past five years from our schools. That's why we're committing to make preschool available to all three-year-olds and four-year-olds. And it's why we continue to believe that Medicare needs to be funded properly and that the attacks on Medicare need to stop. These universal services may not be enough for families who are in deep structural poverty. The literature suggests that exposure to poverty in childhood damages a child's development, their future productive capacity and their life prospects more generally. It has economic costs for our society, but surely the moral cost is much greater. Government already run a range of early-intervention programs delivered in the home to support those families. The question is: are we doing enough? As the Productivity Commission has made clear, there is a group of people for whom poverty is an unending reality, and we need to come to grips with it as a society. Unfortunately this is not a challenge that seems to be of interest to the government. The coalition came to power with a very limited set of fixations. They're fixated on unions and on working people's organisations, they're fixated on delivering tax cuts to very big businesses and they're fixated on stopping action on climate change. They struggle to find enthusiasm for any issue that doesn't involve their ideological obsessions, and unfortunately that is most issues. That's why this government find themselves without any plan whatsoever to address income stagnation. That's why they find themselves without any plan to attack poverty. Having the Productivity Commission report regularly on inequality, as proposed in this bill, will drag these issues back onto the table, because that is where they belong. Australians are facing the very real consequences of policy inaction. Income inequality—sustained poverty—creates a multitude of barriers that affect people's living standards, affect their social participation and extract an enormous human cost. It's clear that the government have no real interest in addressing those concerns. When they do talk about welfare, their focus is on punitive measures. They are focused on monitoring payments and overpayments, chasing up debts from extremely financially disadvantaged groups, and income management. There's no thoughtful discussion about tackling disadvantage. There's no thoughtful discussion about the social and economic benefits that come from investing in our poorest people. This is a missed opportunity—a missed opportunity in social policy as well as a missed economic opportunity. It should be a priority of the government to address this issue. Instead, they choose to simply engage in a war of words. There's no more hiding behind rhetoric about what past Labor governments may or may not have done. The government have been in power for five years, and their inaction is having serious consequences. Poverty isn't a force of nature; it's not something that exists in isolation. It is forced on people by social and economic structures that inflict harm, and it affects our most vulnerable. Overwhelmingly, it is children and the elderly who bear the brunt of food insecurity and income inequality. Just today we've had reports that the government is nearly halving the funding for Foodbank, our largest food organisation, which nationally provides emergency relief to on-the-ground charities, reaching thousands and thousands of vulnerable Australian families. We should be doing more, not less, to support these people. Addressing poverty in Australia should be core business—a key priority for this parliament and a key priority for the government. But that's not the case. We need to change our institutional arrangements so that now and forever these issues cannot be ignored. I commend this bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [11:09]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

32 AYES Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR (teller) Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hanson, P Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 11 11:11 The PRESIDENT I0Q As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call Senator McAllister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 11:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [11:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 [No. 2] 12

A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 [No. 2]

Second Reading 12 11:15 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria For Australia, being a trade-dependent nation, it is very important that we understand just how significant the trading relationships that we have are to the prosperity of this nation. It's said that one in five Australian jobs are linked to trade and it's said that this is a method by which we can ensure we have better paid jobs. But trade, like any other aspect of the economy, is not about just letting the market rip, nor does it guarantee prosperity in itself. The truth is that there really is no such thing as free trade, because the market sets the rules. Therefore, it's important that this parliament has a view about what those rules are and how they apply. It is important, when we negotiate trade agreements, to ensure that the rules that are put in place do ensure fairness. The A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 that the Labor Party has brought forward is aimed at ensuring that Australians are not disadvantaged by trade agreements with other nations, that we do ensure we are able to maintain access to engagement in the international trading system without losing sovereignty for this nation and undermining the living conditions of our own people. It is important that we are able to contrast the situation of what should be with what actually happens now, because trade agreements are negotiated in secret and have been done so for years. We know that they have been generally put in the context where economic modelling is presented prior to a trade agreement being entered into which is not delivered in practice. There have been many occasions that modelling has been put to us. I'm going to quote from those who study these things a position put forward by Martin Feil, who studied the failure of free market economics, outlined in a book that is well worth reading. He highlights the point, which he has argued in various journals around the country, that we have known for some time that the agreements that have been modelled have always been modelled in such a way as to suggest the returns to Australia are very optimistic. He said: In every agreement the results have been dismal. A background note by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library (December 8, 2008) provides data for each agreement up until 2006/07 and states: ''Research suggests that FTAs offer little in the way of trade liberalisation and a shift to more liberal trade policies particularly in agricultural trade. Rather FTAs are used more often to promote other non-economic, diplomatic and regional interests. It is a point I made when we were discussing other trade matters recently. When you look at the detail of what's actually being proposed, the benefits, one presumes, are in the strategic area rather than in the economic area, because the modelling, even in recent times, has been able to demonstrate that the case is not to be made in terms of direct benefit. Of course, we see this point in regard to the United States free trade agreement. At the time that the US free trade agreement was negotiated, which was established on 1 January 2005, it was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister and trade minister, Mark Vaile. It was said to be the most significant free trade agreement in Australia's history. He said the FTAs were worth billions of dollars and would create thousands of jobs. On that occasion, a study was commissioned by the Centre for International Economics, a private economic consultancy. It was undertaken by way of commission for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The study that was promoted widely in Australia said: … over the first 20 years … the present values of the benefits to the Australian economy exceeds $57 billion, over 30,000 jobs will be created and real wages will rise, and all states and territories will be better off. Of course, when we look at the economic statistics, we find that that economic modelling was very optimistic. Because I don't just read the critics of free market economics, I might also take this opportunity to quote the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission, in their recent review, which was published just this year with regard to the 2016-17 trade review, cited their earlier assessments. They've made this point on other occasions. They said: … the economic benefits of bilateral trade agreements have generally been oversold and the risks have been understated. The Commission recommended that agreements should be reached only when they provide outcomes that are in Australia’s interest and they are the most cost-effective way of achieving those outcomes. The Commission further recommended that there should be more transparent and rigorous assessments of such agreements. This should encompass two elements. To ensure agreements are in the Australia’s interest, before negotiations commence, modelling should include realistic— I underline that point, 'realistic'— scenarios and be overseen by an independent body. After negotiations have concluded and prior to signing of the agreement, a full and public assessment should be undertaken covering all of the actual negotiated provisions. As with all areas of policy, trade agreements need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the balance of benefits and costs for future agreements may be different, for example because they cover a smaller share of Australian trade. Most of these agreements, we concede, have been negotiated by conservative governments and have not been put in place to actually protect Australia's national interest, particularly when it comes to Australia's workers' interests, because they've undermined fairness in the Australian workplaces. They have used labour market arrangements in such a way as to undermine the capacity of Australian workers to actually defend their living conditions. Labor acknowledges that, while foreign workers do play an important part in our economic development, there's the fundamental principle of fairness to ensure that Australian workers ought to be offered work first when it comes to ensuring the opportunities for prosperity in this nation. Foreign workers shouldn't be brought into Australia to undermine wages and conditions for Australian workers. The temporary migration system is intended to supplement skills and to make up for labour market shortages in the country, not to undermine the wages and conditions of Australian working people. They shouldn't be used to remove the ability of Australians to actually get jobs. That process couldn't be more simple. What we've seen, however, under these trade agreements is that capacity, that basic right, being undermined. Several of the agreements the current government has seen have been waved through. The exceptions in the trade agreements undermine the fundamental principles of social democracy in this country. I think this is why it's so important that we stand firm on those questions and why a Labor government will move to preserve that fundamental democratic right. The provision of investor-state dispute settlements is another area. This bill seeks to prohibit future Australian governments from signing agreements that include these ISDS clauses, the provision to allow for foreign companies to sue national governments. The provisions undermine our national sovereignty by limiting the ability of Australian governments to act in the national interest. This argument is often heard from those who defend these arrangements embedded in a number of agreements. The TPP, for instance, is a case where the capacity to sue the Australian government—for protection of Australian health matters, for instance. It's claimed these agreements haven't worked, because the tobacco companies have not been successful to date. I don't hold to that view, because we just don't know what the circumstances will be in the future. We shouldn't provide opportunities for people to find other jurisdictions to undermine our sovereignty. Defending the interests of Australian people, for instance, on health matters has been an area of interest. I don't quote just critics of the free market. The Productivity Commission has made this point: … seek to avoid accepting provisions in trade agreements that confer additional substantive or procedural rights on foreign investors over and above those already provided by the Australian legal system. That's, clearly, what this bill seeks to do. The bill also prohibits the signing of agreements that do not protect Australians' skills, in regard to future matters. It will also prohibit governments signing agreements that would undermine arrangements under the PBS. It will protect our universal health care. We could extend that to protecting such breakthrough provisions of social contract in this country as Medicare, which is a world-leading initiative. It is constantly under attack by international interests that are seeking to undermine the capacity for a universal healthcare program, such as Medicare has provided. We also have measures such as the antidumping regime, which is consistent with our international trade obligations. But there are those who would seek to undermine this parliament's capacity to ensure Australian industry is not subject to unfair and unreasonable anticompetitive actions by foreign governments and foreign corporations and cartels seeking to attack Australian industry. We've seen so many circumstances where the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission has been obliged to act. We've seen it in steel and aluminium. We've seen it in glass. We've seen actions taken on tomatoes and a range of other products, where Australian economic interests have been directly under assault as a result of quite unfair and unreasonable actions taken in the international trading system. This should be prevented, and any government that was genuinely interested in preserving our domestic interest would ensure that it was. It is the entire global trading system. We see President Trump prosecuting his trade war with China. This has made circumstances even more volatile. The US has sought to protect its domestic interest at the expense of so many other countries, and even at the expense of Australia, with the question of trade diversion now becoming a real issue for the Anti-Dumping Commission, as we saw at the last Senate estimates. There are issues around unsafe products. This bill prohibits governments from signing agreements which restrict the powers of the Australian government to regulate public safety with regard to the banning of importation of unsafe products, such as the flammable aluminium cladding which the Australian Labor Party has already indicated we will ban from being imported to the country following the Senate inquiry that we pursued through this parliament. It demonstrated examples of non-conforming building products. Senator Ketter chaired the inquiry, which made the point about widespread corruption in the international trading system—systematic fraud and cases where people were transferring documentation in such a way which left it wide open to abuse. And trade restrictions were not being enforced through the international trading system at the time. This left no choice for the Australian government to demonstrate—as it did with asbestos—its commitment to protect the Australian people. And, of course, the provisions contained in this bill would allow the Australian government to maintain those pressures. I have already indicated that on labour rights we will emphasise how important it is that with all trade agreements—no matter what they're about or whether they're bilateral, regional or multilateral—the Australian Commonwealth government has an obligation to protect the human rights of Australians when it comes to the issue of defending their economic rights in terms of their rights at work. There is the fundamental issue of ending the regime of secrecy, whereby governments negotiate these agreements in secret and without the effective engagement of the parliament in the process of agreement setting. Australian companies, the unions, NGOs, community organisations and the wider public are effectively kept in the dark. What we've seen is agreement after agreement being entered into in such a way as we're not given any real choice about ratification. Bills are put to the parliament and we really only have the choice of altering the tariff regime, not the substantive issues in the agreement itself. That's what we complained about in the previous legislation on this matter. We make the point that it's critical in any government arrangements that we have a national interest assessment and that it be kept separate from proper and independent modelling so that the people who negotiate these agreements don't actually get to mark their own homework. We're getting the same people to assess what they've done; it's like having the auditors in your pocket when we put together any other arrangements in any other part of the economy. It's just a ludicrous proposition, what's actually going on at the moment. With an election looming, what we do know is that these are issues we need to deal with. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties needs to be given a proper engagement. We've made it very clear that we need to ensure that the parliament has a proper role to play in the setting of agreements of this type. This bill hasn't been conjured up out of thin air; the Labor Party and Jason Clare, the shadow minister for trade, have ensured that there has been widespread consultation on these matters. We've brought it to the parliament in response to real concerns in the community about the way these trade agreements are being conducted. The government benches understand how widespread the concerns are on these matters—that the existing trade agreement arrangements don't ensure fairness and don't ensure that we get a good deal for Australia. They're presented, effectively, as a fait accompli and they don't have proper accountability mechanisms built into them. So to ensure that we have a proposition where we can protect the public and the national interest, we have engaged widely with the unions—both at the ACTU level and individually—with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; with the National Farmers' Federation; with the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network; and with the Export Council of Australia. This bill, of course, is only the beginning of that work, and a lot more needs to be done to ensure transparency and fairness in the negotiation of trade agreements. Labor will make announcements on further issues that we will take forward. These measures are about protecting Australian jobs, genuinely protecting the national interest and making sure that unfair trade agreements that have been negotiated by the coalition are corrected. It will promote the defence of Australian industry and Australian workers, and we'll make sure that this is done in a way that is consistent with our international treaty obligations. We'll make sure fairness is put at the centre of these arrangements. We will not rely on the invisible hand, some magical force, to ensure that the national interest is protected. When it comes down to it, it is about what we do in this parliament. It is about what we, as the government of Australia, do to ensure the Australian people get a fair go in the international trading system. This bill will allow the beginning of that work to be undertaken. I trust that this chamber is able to give it the consideration it deserves and vote accordingly. 11:35 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I agree with the last statement Senator Carr made: I hope this chamber does give this particular piece of legislation the treatment it deserves. I think my vision of that treatment would be slightly different from Senator Carr's. I think it is actually very sad—I've risen in this place on a number of times to talk about this; and it wasn't in the context of those directly opposite, it was in the context of other members of this chamber talking about it—that as a chamber, as a parliament and as a society we are at risk of going down the populist rabbit hole of an antitrade agenda. We've seen it in other countries. I do find it slightly ironic that Senator Carr—and the Greens for that matter—is on the same page as President Trump when it comes to ISDS, which, as I understand it, President Trump has recently negotiated out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We've seen across the political spectrum an abandonment of a long-held consensus that trade is good for societies that embark on it. It is good for many reasons. It is good because it boosts the wealth of all societies. This is not a zero-sum game; you do not have winners and losers. If you trade, everyone has the potential to get wealthier. That is not a pollyannaish view of economics. There are people who can suffer in the structural adjustment—and it is part of the role of government to smooth out some of those bumps. But this cannot be done by returning to policies of the past that we all know have failed. Senator Carr quoted some economist that he described as 'right wing'. I will paraphrase Keynes. Keynes knew that, following World War II, the Treaty of Versailles, and the reparation conditions it put on Germany, was a massive risk to the world. It was a massive risk because it put a cost on the German economy that was going to lead to resentment, economic underperformance and Germany being isolated from the rest of Western Europe. He knew that, in time, that would lead the world down a very negative path. He was right about that. It led, I think in the view of most historians, directly to the Second World War and the rise of Nazism in Germany. Economic integration of our communities—economic integration at the level of governments, at the level of business-to-business contacts and at the level of individuals being able to travel and work overseas—is good for all societies. It brings societies closer together. It generates the wealth that societies like ours can use to fund things like the NDIS. Senator Carr said we should be modelling these exercises. But who could have said 50 years ago what our economic ties to Singapore, an underdeveloped Asian economy at that point in time, would have been 50 years later? It was completely unknown, and unknowable. Trade is not something that is governed from above. Trade depends on business-to-business links. It depends on innovation. It depends on the ability of people to talk across borders, to make arrangements and to come to economic conclusions that are of betterment to all parties. Again, I'll go back to the word 'consensus'. There used to be a consensus on trade, which does seem to be breaking down in our current world. I use the word 'consensus' very advisedly. I hark back to the Hawke and Keating governments, which I think you would expect I'm no great fan of. But, at the level of their ministries, they understood the importance of trade, not just to Australia but as a path to linking economies more closely together, linking individual businesses more closely together, bringing prosperity and bringing peace. I think a genuine outcome of trade is that the world is a more peaceful, more integrated place. We understand each other better if we trade. The Trojan Horses that are being put forward at the moment—the ISDS clauses, labour market testing—and the fig leaves that Labor is using to walk away from the previously bipartisan commitment to the benefits of trade to both Australia and the world are just that—they are fig leaves. They are Trojan Horses. They are commands from the union movement. They are not anything that, in reality, the people of Australia in particular but also the people of the other countries we trade with need be concerned about. I'll use an example. I was at the JSCOT hearing into the Peru free trade agreement last Thursday where we directly saw the Labor members of that committee walking away from a commitment to free and open trading policies. Again, it greatly saddened me that we saw that. We heard that in fact the ISDS clause in the Peru free trade agreement was one of the strongest ISDS clauses we had ever seen in protecting things like Australia's public health system, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the right to legislate on things such as tobacco. We heard it was one of the strongest. We also heard—and this doesn't need to be heard, because everyone knows it is a fact—that ISDS clauses have been used against Australia only once, unsuccessfully, in 30 years of existence. This is the big threat to Australian sovereignty: something that has been used once in 30 years in a tribunal case that was lost. These ISDS clauses are wanted by our trading partners. Peru wants the ISDS clause in the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement because they see it as a pathway to giving businesses who want to invest in Peru confidence that the government is not going to step in and appropriate their property. It gives large organisations the confidence of investing in an economically underdeveloped and also, potentially—and I'm not making any comments on Peru—politically underdeveloped country. There are many countries around the world that don't have the strong institutions and the strong institutional history of good institutional governance that places like Australia, Western Europe and North America have. There are many places around the world that are desperate for companies to come and invest and grow their economy to give their people the opportunity that those in the West have had for generations, and ISDS clauses are a way for those countries to give confidence to the investment community. They know it's important that people can come and invest without fear that the government is going to step in and take over that property at a future point in time or make some change in the law that makes that property valueless. These are not radical clauses. As I said, they've been around for 30 years. They give protection to Australia's sovereignty, but at the same time they give certainty to exporters. In fact, Australian exporters have used ISDS clauses in their dealings overseas to protect their own economic position in other countries, which, as I said, perhaps don't have the strength of commitment to the rule of law that Australia does and the strong institutions and the desire not to do negative things towards the people who wish to invest and grow our economy. I think it's really important when we are considering these types of bills that we do not fall into the trap of believing the rhetoric that in some way these are removing Australian sovereignty, are weakening our ability to govern ourselves and have our own law. In actual fact these agreements increase the level of engagement of Australian businesses with overseas countries. As I said, this is an unalloyed good. It is good for Australia. It gives us new opportunities to grow the wealth of our companies. It also gives other countries—because this is a two-way street—the opportunity to sell their goods and services in Australia. This obviously is of benefit to the Australian people, who get access to new, potentially cheaper and different services and products that they haven't had access to before. It is sad that Labor is walking away from a legacy of support for agreements and the benefits that trade does deliver. It's sad to see that, particularly in the case of the Peru free trade agreement, which is good for Australia and particularly good for Australian manufacturing ironically. I find it a little odd that Senator Carr is not aware of the fact that the Peru free trade agreement offers some real benefits to Australian manufacturing. Labor is walking away from that support, seemingly at the insistence of the union movement. Labor is undermining the process that enables Australian producers to export to the world more of what we produce here. It is undermining the means by which farmers, miners, manufacturers and hundreds of smaller businesses can grow their supply chains, can create more jobs in Australia and can export more. It is undermining the process that supports thousands of Australians to stay and work in and to grow rural and regional communities across the country. What does this bill propose to do? It is going to open up each and every free trade agreement potentially for renegotiation. This potentially would have a massive cost in terms of uncertainty to the business community and a massive cost in terms of the sheer amount of work involved, particularly for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I notice Minister Payne is here today. I know Minister Payne knows the sheer amount of work that goes into negotiating these trade agreements and the level of uncertainty that would flow if we opened up every one of our trade agreements to renegotiation. Labor have said that they're going to establish a new team of negotiators within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and charge them with renegotiating agreements previously finalised. That means that a Labor government would ask the very team that negotiated the original agreements to go back, undo all their hard work and open up every aspect that has been negotiated. These are always done by negotiation—there is give and take. We can't order or require foreign countries to behave in a certain way. It is a two-way street, and we need to negotiate with them. They will go back and undermine all the hard work that has previously been done. How much would that cost? How much would that cost Australian businesses? How much would that cost in terms of uncertainty if you do not know if a current tariff rate reduction is going to flow through in a particular time frame? It would certainly undermine business to an extraordinary degree and it would cost the Australian economy an extraordinary amount. Not only does this threaten the established free trade agreements that this government in particular has been so successful in negotiating but it also creates enormous uncertainty for the businesses which are already trading based on those agreements. What does Labor expect our trading partners to do: to cop it? to not expect anything in return? to not see it as a fundamental abrogation of the negotiation in good faith that has already occurred? Would a Labor government capitulate if our trading partners wanted to do this to us? It's a question that needs to be answered. It's a very troubling approach—it's a very naive approach—from the opposition, and I certainly hope it never comes to fruition. Let's look at what some of the industry stakeholders have said. GrainGrowers, the national grain farmer representative organisation, said: Bilateral and regional preferential trade agreements such as the TPP-11 are critical in improving export opportunities and prices for the Australian grain sector. Red Meat Advisory Council chairman Don Mackay said, on the TPP-11: It is a significant and exciting agreement for Australia’s 82,500 red meat businesses and the 438,000 Australian jobs our industry supports, many of whom are completely export reliant. Fiona Simson, NFF President, said that the CEPA 'locks in important new trade opportunities for our meat, grain, sugar, dairy and horticultural producers'. This is a government that is committed to trade, and that's not an accident—and 27 years of continuous economic growth is not an accident. Trade is fundamental to that growth. Trade is critical to the Australian economy. We have always been a trading nation. We are at the end of the trading line, as it were. If we don't trade, we are not in a geographically advantageous position from the rest of the world's point of view. We are at the end of the line. In Western Australia in particular, my home state—the grain industry, for example—90-plus per cent of Western Australia's grain is exported. The vast majority of our agricultural produce as a whole is exported. Obviously large amounts of minerals are exported. Trade is the lifeblood of Western Australia. It is what grows our economy. It's what creates the jobs of today and jobs into the future. I note in passing—and hopefully I'll have time to go to this again later—some of the benefits from the Peru free trade agreement, which is currently being considered and where some of the jobs that are being created potentially lie. One of the big winners out of the Peru free trade agreement is machinery sales; 95 per cent of tariffs, which are currently up to 17 per cent, will be eliminated on entry into force of the Peru free trade agreement. This represents agricultural machinery, which is manufactured in Australia. It also represents mining equipment, which is manufactured in Australia. I note in passing that recent ABS statistics showed that, for the first time in a long time, manufacturing jobs in Australia are on the uptick; they're actually increasing. We've seen a long structural decline in manufacturing jobs in Australia under all governments—this is undisputed—but recently we've actually been turning a corner. That's because what Australia does very well is high-tech manufacturing in areas like agriculture and mining as well as some aspects of high-tech shipbuilding and other military asset production, and we have opportunities to supply, into markets like Peru, the mining and agricultural machinery that we produce in Australia. Others that would benefit include paper and paperboard manufacturers: 86 per cent of tariffs, which are currently up to nine per cent, eliminated on entry into force of the Peru free trade agreement. This would cover 95 per cent of Australia's current exports of these products. We also see increased access for beef, which is obviously pretty significant for the Australian agricultural sector, and wine—again, the Peru free trade agreement would see elimination of tariffs of up to nine per cent across products upon entry into force, with some others being phased out over a five-year period, which is quicker than the TPP-11. In retail medicine, tariffs would be eliminated on entry into force. In plastics, tariffs on many products would be eliminated either immediately or within five years. This was negotiated at 11 years under the TPP. One of the things that came up at the hearing last week was: why have a TPP and a Peru free trade agreement? Well, the simple answer is that the Peru free trade agreement, because it's a bilateral agreement, doesn't have to cover all the competing interests of 11 countries. It's an agreement between Peru and Australia, so it can be a lot narrower in focus and it gives a lot more preferential access to a large number of products. Trade is a good thing and I think those opposite should remember that. 11:55 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak in favour of the A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 [No. 2], which was put forward by the opposition. It deals with a number of key elements of concern that were included in the TPP arrangements, but also across the board, as to how our trade negotiations are undertaken and the impact that these deals have on Australian workers, on the Australian community and on our democracy. One of the major concerns that the Greens had in relation to the implementing legislation that passed this parliament only a number of weeks ago was that some of the worst elements that are being addressed in this bill remained in the TPP arrangement, which was signed off and ratified as a result of that implementing legislation passing. I might say at the outset that, while this is a good step forward, it is disappointing and slightly cynical to see the Labor opposition putting this up now rather than fixing the elements in the TPP when they actually had an opportunity, because what we know is that the TPP has now been ratified with things like the insidious ISDS clauses. They are the provisions that allow big multinational companies to sue the Australian people if the government were to change the laws that these companies don't like—laws that might affect their profits, such as a moratorium on coal exports or other health provisions. We know they tried in relation to tobacco advertising. What if we started to insist on a rise in the minimum wage? Would we have multinational companies from overseas deciding that this would be an opportunity to sue the Australian people and have a chilling effect on progressive policy passing this parliament? We could have fixed all this by not ticking off on the TPP. Sadly, we saw the Labor Party cuddle up to the government at that time, and now we're in a situation where one of the biggest trade deals ever done in Australian history has been signed off with the terrible ISDS provisions, which allow multinational companies to have more rights and more power than the Australian people. That is there, written in black and white. The TPP also included some terrible provisions when it comes to labour market testing, or a lack thereof. Six countries within the TPP can bring unlimited numbers of workers to Australia without working out whether there are locals who can do those jobs. We're worried that this is going to drive down working conditions. We're worried that this sets a very bad precedent for trade deals going forward. We know that, overall, the workers who have been brought to Australia already face conditions which are undermining other workers' conditions. It allows them to be open to exploitation. No worker, whether they are an Australian citizen, whether they are a permanent resident or whether they are a visiting temporary worker, deserves to be exploited simply for doing their job. All workers in Australia deserve the protection of proper conditions: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And we also, of course, know that, if we are to lift the conditions of workers across our region and across the globe, we have to start here at home. We don't want a race to the bottom when it comes to wages, conditions and the loopholes that big multinational companies use to exploit workers in order to maximise their own profits. All of these things should have been fixed in the TPP negotiations and in that deal. It should not have been ratified or given implementation by this chamber, as it was only a number of weeks ago. We are incredibly disappointed that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party worked together to put through the TPP, which allowed these terrible things to remain in place. We could have fixed it, and we didn't, because Labor decided to vote with the government of the time. However, fast-forward to today and we now see legislation before us which would improve things considerably for new trade deals done from today onwards. That has to be acknowledged as a positive step forward. We know that we should have much better transparency when it comes to negotiating trade deals. At the moment, effectively, the Australian community and civil society are locked out of the process. Big business and their big lobbyists are invited in, and they've often got government doing their bidding for them, but the community, the experts, civil society and the NGOs are locked out. These negotiations are done in secret. These negotiations consist of pages and pages—reams of paper—and nothing is seen until right at the end, after the negotiations have concluded. We need to change that, and we need to change it before any new trade deals are done by Australia. The European Union have implemented, through their commission, a new process which allows for much better transparency. The community is brought in and involved right from the beginning. There are regular updates. There are regular briefings. There is a general public interest conversation about trade deals and negotiations as they are on foot, not after the fact, when it's too late to change any of the detail. The other thing that the European Union have implemented is a ban on ISDS provisions. They have heard loud and clear from their citizens and from their representative governments that giving big multinational companies more power than the people who elect governments and the governments themselves just isn't right. So, in their negotiations with Australia on the new EU-Australia free trade agreement, the EU negotiators have been absolutely crystal clear that ISDS provisions cannot be included. Good. And Australia should be doing the same. We should be insisting on the same for every trade arrangement we enter into, including the arrangements that we're currently negotiating with Indonesia. We need to make sure up-front that things like ISDS provisions are not included and that they're not even on the table for discussion. We've had it with the excuses from this government, the Liberal-National Party, as to why big corporations should get more power than the people. The more they carry on with these excuses, the older and more tired they become. The community is sick of it. The Australian Greens are sick of it. And now we see, with this bill being brought forward by the Labor Party, that even the Labor Party seems to be tired of the rhetoric that these big corporations should be trusted to do the right thing. No, all these corporations want to do is maximise their own profits, and, under the ISDS provisions, it comes at the expense of the rights, the will and the desire of the community—of the voting public. Of course we know that, if an ISDS provision is in place that allows a big multinational company to sue a government for changing conditions or implementing new policy, that, of course, has a chilling effect on the ability of governments to get on and do their job. That is why they're there. If they weren't there to provide a chilling effect on governments implementing laws then they wouldn't exist. It's about giving assurance to big corporations, not assurance to the community and the democratic institutions that they should be able to act in the best interests of the people. What if we had a new government—a government that was willing to take climate change seriously and that understood we need to phase-out fossil fuels? The international scientific community is telling us loud and clear that we've got to get on with it. If we want to implement laws that drive the needed transition away from fossil fuels and the polluting economy towards a renewable-powered economy that's going to be clean, green, affordable and able to drive down pollution—because we have to get serious about climate change—then we need to know we can do that safely and without the threat of being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions of dollars, by big multinational companies that are making massive profits from the fact that they can extract fossil fuels, burn them and keep polluting the atmosphere. If we want to get serious about climate change, we can't have the chilling effects of ISDS provisions in any of our trade arrangements. We shouldn't have them in the TPP. We should have stopped the TPP. Now, we need to make sure, going forward, that we don't allow Australia to sign up to any new trade arrangements that include these provisions. I have already mentioned that labour market testing is important as well. Australians know we are a trading nation. We import a lot of goods and services and we export a lot. We are an island nation and we've always traded. Let's make sure those rules are fair for the community and fair for the people who are working to power our economy into the future. We need to make sure, if there are Australians who are able to do the job, that they get a look-in and that they're protected. We also need to make sure that Australians doing the job know their conditions are protected and are not going to be driven down or undermined because a multinational company or a foreign government want to import their own workers to Australia to drive down conditions to maximise profits. In order to fix that, the provisions, as outlined in this bill, would be a welcome step forward. This doesn't deal with all of the things that the Greens would do if we were debating our own legislation to clean up the practice but it is a positive step forward. As I said at the outset, it's cynical to see the Labor Party put this on the table now because they should have worked with the Greens only three or four weeks ago, stopped the TPP and fixed all of this before giving it any form of ratification. They didn't. They bent over. They cuddled up to the government. Now we've got the worst trade deal Australia's ever seen signed and delivered. Going forward, let's clean this up and have a positive mechanism which allows us to sign up to trade deals and negotiate fairly for a fair deal for workers and for the community. 12:09 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That the question now be put. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

36 AYES Anning, F Burston, B Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Waters, LJ Watt, M (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 25 NOES Abetz, E Brockman, S Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR (teller) 7 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Sinodinos, A Brown, CL Paterson, J Collins, JMA Scullion, NG Marshall, GM Martin, S.L Moore, CM Macdonald, ID Urquhart, AE Birmingham, SJ Wong, P Cormann, M

Question agreed to.

12:17 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time. Debate interrupted.

The Senate divided. [12:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

MOTIONS 21 MOTIONS National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 21 12:20 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That the Senate apologise to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. In doing so, I echo the words spoken by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 22 October 2018 and in his national apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I also acknowledge the moving remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. There is no more significant duty or weightier moral obligation for a decent nation than the protection of its children. They are so much more than just our future. In their innocence, their unconditional trust and their hopefulness they are the best of us. That that innocence was so often shattered, their trust so often betrayed and those hopes so cruelly quashed will forever remain a stain on our national consciousness. That crimes so horrific were allowed to take place for so long, in so many places, with such impunity, defies comprehension. That so many of those who suffered are not with us today, having sometimes taken their lives or languished in poverty, prison or despair, worsens the blow. These horrific crimes of sexual abuse occurred in places where children should have felt safe—places where parents trusted that those involved would have the care of their children uppermost in their minds. Predators targeted places like schools and churches, sporting clubs and scout groups, orphanages and foster homes. In many cases the organisations that ran these facilities and services turned a blind eye to the abuses and pretended they didn't happen. These were crimes of unknowable scale. The royal commission estimates that tens of thousands of children were sexually abused in some of Australia's most trusted institutions. Tragically, we will never know the true number. That fact alone will surely haunt our society for a long time. The commission's report tells a harrowing story of almost complete failure: the failure to protect the innocent; the failure to believe the victims; the failure to challenge the perpetrators; a collective, systemic national failure. No words will ever be able to wind back the clock, heal the scars or erase the evils of the past. No speech will ever truly satisfy those countless thousands who asked for help but were denied. Why were those vile crimes committed against them allowed to occur? Why were the victims not believed? Why was justice and safety so unreachable? I extend the Senate's heartfelt sympathy to every victim and survivor, to acknowledge and honour them and to commit resolutely to responding fully to the recommendations produced by the royal commission. Ultimately, all of us in this place have a duty to do all that we can as best we can to right past wrongs and prevent future evils. I also convey, on behalf of the government, our deep gratitude to all those who contributed to the royal commission's work: to the commissioners and their staff for their tireless efforts; to Prime Minister Morrison and his predecessors, prime ministers Gillard, Rudd, Abbott and Turnbull, for their leadership in steering this important process to this point. I especially pay tribute to the thousands of Australians who relived the worst chapters of their lives in making submissions and attending private sessions. Their strength and courage have inspired a nation. Without it, the commission's work, which has exposed the darkest of crimes in the brightest of lights, would not have been possible. The commission's work, which included the handling of over 42,000 calls, the receipt of nearly 26,000 letters and emails and the holding of over 8,000 private sessions, provides a path forward that is comprehensive, considered and essential on the long road to national healing. We must honour the courage and endurance of those who suffered. We must honour them by faithful implementation of the commission's findings. As we implement 104 of the commission's remaining 122 recommendations directed to the Commonwealth, with the remaining 18 being carefully examined, I'm confident that we will develop a timely and comprehensive bipartisan response. As the Prime Minister stated, the Commonwealth government must lead the way. With the commencement of the national redress scheme, with the support of the states and territories, and the establishment of the National Office for Child Safety, which will now report directly to the Prime Minister, federal, state and territory governments across the country are working to establish a national database on working with children which can be shared nationally. We are also removing the ability of child sex offenders to travel overseas without permission. The task before us is a daunting one but, by harnessing the remarkable courage and conviction of the many victims and survivors, it will be achieved. This is an episode in our nation's history of unfathomable horror, of innocence lost, of trust denied, of hopes and expectations dashed and of the triumph of evil. But thousands of courageous Australians would not be silenced; they would not let evil prevail. They raised their voices. To our collective shame, it took us too long to heed their calls. But they persisted. Despite the pain and the loss, they would not be denied. They roused the nation's dormant conscience into action. On this day and into the future, let us be worthy of them. To the children who suffered so much for so long and in such silence: we are sorry. To the parents, spouses, partners, husbands, wives and children who have struggled with the cruel after-effects of that suffering: we are sorry. To the generations of today and those that came before: we are sorry. 12:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The opposition joins with the government and, indeed, all senators in expressing our most profound sorrow for the suffering and trauma experienced by all victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. To all of those who experienced abuse at the hands of those whose duty it was to care for you, to nurture you and to look after you: I say sorry. To the parents and family members who suffered the distress and trauma of learning that their precious children had been abused by those they trusted to take care of them: I say sorry. I say sorry for your pain. I say sorry for your suffering. I say sorry for the innocence that was stolen. I say sorry for your loss of dignity, a loss for which we, not you, bear shame. I say sorry for your loss of self-esteem and self-worth—a loss, again, for which we, not you, bear the blame. I say sorry for the burden of grief you have carried for so many years—indeed, for so many decades. I say sorry to those among you who were forcibly removed from country, from your spiritual home, and then subjected to physical and psychological violence. I say sorry to those who joined youth groups, who joined the cadet corps and military apprenticeship schools and suffered abuse at the hands of those who should have been your carers and mentors. I say sorry to those of you who, fleeing the privations of postwar Europe, were transported to secular and religious institutions where criminal predators exploited your separation and vulnerability. I say sorry to those who were ignored, disbelieved or abandoned when they sought help. I say sorry for the lives irretrievably damaged, for those lives spent in misery or in jail, and for the so many lives which have ended in tragedy. And I say sorry that even though institutions knew about crimes committed against you they did nothing to care for you and that those same institutions and their leaders did nothing to bring perpetrators to justice but instead turned a blind eye or covered up their crimes; I say sorry. The crimes that were committed against children in institutions, in schools, in churches, in recreational facilities and in community centres are an indelible stain on the reputation of those institutions and on the character of their leaders. But more than that, the crimes committed against children and their families are an indelible stain on our society as a whole—on all of us. If the measure of a society is its caring treatment of those most vulnerable, then we as a society failed you, and in doing so we failed ourselves. By failing to act when facts were known to institutional leaders, to people in authority, to senior members of church hierarchies and to our law enforcement agencies, we as a society condoned the evil of those who committed crimes against children, and we are profoundly sorry for our collective sins of commission and omission. We should recognise the perseverance and endurance of those very brave Australians—victims and survivors, family members, journalists and police officers—who set in train the royal commission that has brought us to this point. Without them we would not have found ourselves in a position, even at this late stage, to apologise for the pain and suffering that was inflicted, to apologise for the crimes committed and to apologise for the callousness of so many institutional and religious leaders who were complicit in these crimes by looking the other way or by covering them up. But, most of all, the many survivors who came forward and told the truth to royal commissioners about what happened to them showed tremendous courage and selflessness. Their suffering is inevitably relived, pain rekindled and vulnerability experienced once again. Our admiration for their bravery and generosity mirrors the depth of our sorrow that these things happened in the first place. If you had not spoken, the apology and the actions that will follow would never have happened. The perseverance of the families and relatives of victims and survivors has also been remarkable, and our Prime Minister Julia Gillard displayed her characteristic compassion and courage by establishing the royal commission. This commission, through its persistent determination to give voice to survivors, its findings and its recommendations, has performed a critically important service to the Australian community. It has exposed the appalling suffering of children and young people. It has chronicled the truth. It has identified the criminals who abused them. It has revealed the cover-ups, the complicity and the extent to which religious institutions exploited the law and legal processes to avoid legal accountability. The royal commission has shown us how power and money, entitlement and privilege, corrupt those who preach compassion but deny it to the victims and survivors of their acts. It has made clear for all to see how too many institutional and religious leaders abandoned their duty to protect the most vulnerable. So many placed a wrong construction of the interests of their religious and civil institution ahead of the interests of those who suffered. This was a callous act. This was an abuse of power, and it harmed many. Justices McClellan and Coate, along with Commissioners Atkinson, Fitzgerald, Milroy and Murray, deserve our heartfelt thanks. There was perhaps no better tribute to the quality of the royal commissioners' work than the comment of one of the witnesses, who wrote, 'You cannot know what it meant to be listened to with such respect and made to feel that what happened to me really mattered.' The royal commission's findings are horrific and the scale of abuse is overwhelming. Of those survivors who spoke to the commission, 10½ per cent alleged abuse at the hands non-government, non-religious institutions; 32½ per cent at the hands of government-run institutions; 22.4 per cent at the hands of other Protestant denominations; and 35.7 per cent at the hands of the Catholic Church. The commission's report found that, of the 1,880 perpetrators from within the Catholic Church, 572 were priests. Anglican clergy and lay youth leaders were also engaged in the sexual abuse of children, as were officers of the Salvation Army. It appears that each of these denominations harboured sexual predators and, worse, in many cases knew about it, but, instead of acting to protect children in their care, they acted to protect perpetrators and the reputations of their institutions with well-established procedures to cover up crimes, by moving criminals onto other parishes and other institutions where they could continue to prey on children, the vulnerable, the disabled and the powerless. This collusion was an abuse of power. This collusion compounded harm, and we condemn it. Those who we should most admire are the survivors who came forward to tell the truth, to share their hurt, their pain and their violation. So, to the members of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse reference group, which has guided and informed this parliament's apology, thank you. Of course, sorrow for wrongs committed is worthless without genuine restitution. Simply saying sorry is meaningless unless there is repentance and a resolution to prevent the commission of further evils to make things right. Here we must ask ourselves and, more importantly, ask the institutions whether the royal commission's discovery of all these crimes against children has had the requisite impact on leaders, whether there is any repentance for crimes committed. Religious bodies must never again be able to use the separation of church and state as an excuse to cover up and perpetuate criminal behaviour, while simultaneously employing legal tactics to minimise financial responsibility. Hiding behind artificial legal structures and trusts that deny them legal personality is not the behaviour of those showing contrition. Rather, it looks like intention to continue to deny survivors redress and recompense, to compound injury with insult. The extent of the crimes against children at the hands of both secular and religious institutions was the result of failure that was both systemic and systematic. If we are to ensure that such exploitation is never to be repeated, those failures must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Beyond contrition and repentance is of course atonement. What are these many institutions intending to do to atone for these failures? Atonement demands deep introspection, a thorough reappraisal of how power is acquired, used and protected. It requires significant structural reform on the part of all institutions, and that is the real challenge that faces institutional leaders: how are they going to reform their structures and systems so as to prevent the recurrence of such widespread criminality? Atonement also demands reconciliation, and this is by far the greatest challenge for all of us. To restore trust after betrayal is perhaps the most difficult thing for a person to do. How much more difficult is it for an entire cohort of survivors? Many of the survivors of child sexual abuse and their families retain deep anger towards those who committed crimes and the institutions that harboured them, and they cannot be expected to extend reconciliation and restore trust to those who continue to deny them rights. Reconciliation also demands action on the part of those who offended, and guilt is not expunged by words. All of us who share that guilt, whether through ignorance, inadvertence or indifference, must back up expressions of sorrow and apology with actions that repair damage where we can and restore trust where we might. The opposition, like the government, supports all the recommendations of the royal commission and we also will work to ensure they are implemented in full. The National Redress Scheme supported by Commonwealth, state and territory governments is key to the journey to reconciliation. The scheme is far from perfect. It is too slow. Some survivors have been unfairly excluded, and some institutions are yet to sign up. It is imperative that institutions sign up and offer their unstinting support. Nothing less is acceptable. Survivors have been waiting decades for redress and, sadly, in many cases, they are running out of time. It is imperative that we in the parliament be guided by the original recommendations of the royal commission and that we listen to survivors throughout this process. The National Office for Child Safety is another vital element in ensuring children are cared for, nurtured and protected. The safety of all our children is paramount, and it is critical that children are themselves empowered to act in their own interests. They must be taught to recognise danger and to tell their parents and those caring for them when they see or experience something that they think is wrong, and they must be believed. The opposition also supports the establishment of a national centre of excellence. This will help survivors of institutional child sexual abuse to address the issues of stigma, to ensure that support services represent best practice to keep the memory of these injustices alive and to promote awareness of impacts of child sexual abuse and the avenues for its prevention. I encourage the states and territories to support this initiative. The royal commission has held up a mirror to the nation, and we have been shocked by what we have seen. The nation is ashamed and sorry. But we know that we are better than this and we can do better than this. All of you to whom we say sorry today can expect no less. So, as we beg the forgiveness of those who have suffered such unspeakable pain, we also know we must restore justice and rebuild trust. We must resolve as a nation that we will do everything in our power to prevent this abuse, betrayal and harm from ever happening again. 12:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to support the apology, to support the government's statement and the opposition's statement and to add some words on behalf of the Australian Greens. We too apologise for the years of abuse, suffering, trauma, the ongoing trauma, the nightmares and the intergenerational trauma that survivors endured, not just in the past but recent survivors as well. As part of the references committee we heard from survivors who suffered recent abuse through institutions. We need to remember that this is ongoing. We apologise for the fact that survivors were subjected to institutional abuse by people that abused the power that they had over innocent young people; institutions that these children thought they should be able to put their respect in and that they could trust. That trust was abused. Just last week I was in Newcastle. We heard from survivors. We were talking about redress, which I will come back to. People spoke of the fear of answering the door, of the nightmares that they suffered and of the lifelong sentence that people were given through this abuse. We heard of the powerful disincentives to disclose. So we are sorry and we apologise. We also apologise to the prisoners that are currently in our justice system as a result of the abuse that they endured as children in institutions. We apologise to those who were originally going to be excluded from the redress system because of the failure to understand the impact of abuse and its close association with addiction, which leads to interactions with the justice system. Not only was young children's trust abused, but the abuse occurred again when they were not believed. When they sought to tell people in authority, whether it was the people in authority in the institutions, sometimes it was their parents who actually believed the abusers rather than their own children. We apologise to those children as well. I know there are lots of quotes that have been used while we have been discussing the apology. When I was in Newcastle just last week, I was given a book by a survivor. It's called Our Little Secret, by Lorraine Hall. I thought that I would quote from her experiences in her book. She said: 'The title of Our Little Secret relates to the shame I felt holding the secret of my abuse. The secrets we hold cause a double bind, meaning the perpetrator will often show attention and love to the victim and then harm the victim. We, as victims, deny a certain aspect of the reality of the abuse and are often confused about love and our attachment to the perpetrator. Survivors take it to be their fault, their shame. Perpetrators hold authoritarian power over us as children and often into our adulthood, rendering their victims powerless. Feelings such as being worthless and not good enough are always present, either in our behaviours or our beliefs about ourselves. Perpetrators either say or imply keeping a secret of the abuse. Secrets are like a curse in as much as the guilt and shame we hold in our self-beliefs. We cannot see shame, but it perpetrates into our mental, spiritual and emotional beliefs about ourselves, right down to our cellular memory. We also hold it in our bodies. What survivor doesn't have feelings or thoughts of being powerless, worthless, not good enough and all alone? Shame and the double bind has been a huge part of my journey, to realise none of it was mine. I needed to take responsibility for myself and let go of these negative beliefs and patterns that I took on. It was not and never was ours or my secret or my fault.' That is what we also acknowledge and want to say to survivors: it was not your fault. It was not your fault that the abuse occurred. It was not your fault that you were not believed. But you are believed now. We, as a nation, believe you. We, as a nation, are apologising for the abuse. We also need to make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that child abuse is stamped out in this country—that we have the processes in place to ensure that this is a thing of the past, that we protect and support our children. One of the key issues that has not been picked up, although apologies have been given—I've heard them—regards those who were not covered by the royal commission; those who suffered physical abuse in institutions that is not classed as sexual abuse. Many, many children were abused in institutions, although it is not classed as sexual abuse. That has also led to years of trauma, and we apologise to you for the abuse that you suffered at the hands of those powerful people in institutions. There was a quote I heard just recently—in fact, in Newcastle—'Trauma sticks, shifts and changes,' which is why we need to acknowledge that the abuse that children suffered has lifelong impacts and the trauma suffered sticks, but it also can change, depending on the circumstances that people confront, and it can shift. I want to talk about the things that perhaps haven't been talked about. We have spoken about the need for redress and to make sure this doesn't happen again, but there are some issues that are still yet to be resolved that survivors are asking us to address. First, I want to address the issues around redress. We need to make sure that the actions we take as a nation to offer redress, in terms of addressing and offering support to people, are not retraumatising people. For example, people have spoken about the retraumatising aspect of needing to fill in a form to apply for redress. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that part 3 of the form has caused some trauma, but the amendments that are being made, according to survivors, do not go far enough. A very simple point has been made: that there should be a note on the form saying, 'Do not fill this in alone,' because it is very likely that filling it in will have very significant impacts. Things like going to a session or a counselling session with someone to help you fill in the form—being much more flexible about the way we address the form and gathering the information that is required for redress. The issue around counselling is one that many people want us to address. I've spoken about the trauma that shifts, that sticks, that changes; the intergenerational trauma; the life-long trauma; and the impacts of PTSD. We need to make sure that we have counselling support for survivors for as long as they live. That means not putting a money limit on the amount of counselling that is received. That means making sure that we offer top-quality trauma-informed counselling. These are the issues that survivors have asked us to raise, and we, as a nation, need to continue that conversation to ensure that we're offering those supports. As has been touched on in other contributions here today and a fortnight ago, the fact that some institutions have for years and years essentially operated as protection rackets needs to be recognised and acknowledged. We need to make sure that institutions are opting in to the Redress Scheme, are acknowledging their role and are no longer continuing to protect people in high places. We need to go to those hard places that are, in fact, the recommendations that the government is still continuing. These issues are hard—I'm not denying it—but we, as a nation, have to go there. We also need to address issues like the confessional. As a nation, we need to recognise that we need to put children's safety first. Another issue that has been raised with me by survivors is that it still causes deep pain and trauma to see the names of their abusers who have been given honours, and our failure to deal with that. I acknowledge that we need to address that issue, and the Greens commit to making sure that we are addressing that issue. We, as a nation, are sorry. We are sorry for what happened. We are sorry for not believing. We are sorry for the ongoing trauma and the intergenerational trauma. We also know that this abuse has had not only lifelong impacts but impacts on families. It has torn families apart. It has impacted on children. It has impacted on grandchildren. We need to follow through on the commitments that we have made to ensure that we get redress right, to ensure that we hold institutions and the people in those institutions to account, to ensure that this does not happen again and to ensure that we help people on their healing journey and acknowledge that they will need to continue to be supported and that there will be ongoing issues in their lives. For example, many people have articulated their deep fear of institutions. What impact will that have on their life in the future? For example, many survivors are ageing. How do we support people in the future as they age? These are all issues that as part of our apology we acknowledge we need to take on and address. Let me finish with the deep sense of sorrow and grief that we as a nation have felt. We as a nation articulate our support for survivors and our deep apology for the years of abuse, suffering and trauma that they have endured. 12:57 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Ten years ago young Catholic people from all parts of the globe descended on Sydney for World Youth Day. Held every two years, World Youth Day is the Catholic Church's global festival of faith, prayer and liturgy and a celebration of youth and young adults. In 2008 it was the largest single event on the planet after the Beijing Olympics. Pope Benedict came to Sydney for World Youth Day and Cardinal George Pell basked in the glow of the event. The city itself seemed to be filled with joy and peace. At the time, I was a minister in the New South Wales government and the government spokesperson for World Youth Day. In 2008 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse had not yet taken place, the Irish government had not yet published the Ryan report into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in that country, the movie Spotlight had not yet been made, and most people assumed that the isolated reports of clerical sexual abuse of children were just that—isolated. I recall a meeting with Cardinal George Pell in the weeks leading up to World Youth Day. My job as a government minister was to oversee the logistics supporting the event—the transport, the health services and the public safety—and to provide media interviews and briefings and public information about the impact of the event on residents and businesses in Sydney. I recall suggesting to the cardinal that we consider that someone may come forward during the event to raise a historic or current complaint of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy and it would be prudent to plan for a response. I will never forget the cardinal's answer. He gave me a hard look and said, 'No-one would dare disrupt such a joyous occasion with such an allegation.' Then he would have no further discussion with us on the matter. I've often reflected on that conversation. I tell that story today in the context of the national apology delivered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the other house and here today by Senator Cormann, supported by Senator Wong. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was ordered by the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Gillard for her determination and courage to help our nation face this dark truth of our story. Ms Gillard attended the apology in the parliament, and sitting next to her, at times holding her hand, was Christine Foster. Chrissie and her husband, Anthony Foster, are the parents of Emma and Katie Foster. Both girls were raped and abused by Father Kevin O'Donnell in Victoria. Father O'Donnell had been raping children for decades. During World Youth Day, Anthony Foster spoke up, and he spoke out. Anthony and Chrissie had been advocating within the church for a decade, trying to get justice for their daughters and for others who had been victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy. They had been met with silence, with gross inadequacy, and with an unwillingness to acknowledge or appropriately respond to the horror their daughters and other children had experienced at the hands of Catholic clergy. The response of the Catholic leadership in Australia to Anthony Foster's public comments during World Youth Day was dismal. Archbishop Anthony Fisher said that the community should 'stop dwelling crankily on old wounds'. Cardinal Pell said that the church had paid for counselling for the Foster girls and that he really had nothing much to do with the Foster case. There are many people who bravely fought and advocated for a royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, but chief among these were Anthony and Chrissie Foster. Their advocacy led to the promise of a commission of inquiry in Victoria in 2012 and then the announcement of a national royal commission later that year by Prime Minister Gillard. The Fosters demonstrate bravery, unflinching determination, ongoing love for their children and all other victims, and an unwavering insistence on justice. Their daughter Emma took her own life in 2008 at age 26 after a traumatic life which included self-harming and drug addiction. Anthony died in 2017, and it was a loss to our nation. It was most fitting that Chrissie, with her daughter Katie, attended the national apology. I applaud the Fosters' decision to use World Youth Day in 2008 as an opportunity to speak up. The world's media and the nation's attention was on young people and the Catholic Church, and the Fosters knew that there would likely never be a better time in Australia to bring to the fore the dark and diabolical truth the Catholic Church was trying to keep hidden. I can't imagine the pain that World Youth Day in 2008 must have caused the thousands of Australians who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy. As a former state legislator and a minister responsible for the event, I am sorry. For the past decade, as a legislator and as a Catholic, I have wrestled with the grotesque juxtaposition that the Catholic Church poses. At its best, the Catholic Church fires up its young believers by preaching the gospel messages and inspiring social action on poverty, inequality, injustice, homelessness, the environment and welcoming refugees. Sydney witnessed this firsthand when World Youth Day came to an often cynical town in 2008. From the moment the first pilgrims landed at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, they charmed the city with their faith, their generosity and their joy. At its worst, though, the Catholic Church has been diabolical to young people. Across the world, the church has presided over the grotesque phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse of children and compounded these sins with weak, pathetic decisions by priests and bishops to hide these crimes. Through the work of the royal commission, Australia has witnessed the horror perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Five thousand submissions relating to the Catholic Church were made to the commission. The victims' stories are harrowing, and their testimony is raw. In New South Wales, allegations of the systematic cover-up of sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese came to light in 2012 as a result of public comments by detective Peter Fox. The royal commission specifically examined Catholic Church authorities in the Maitland-Newcastle region in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and religious. At this stage, the report into the Maitland-Newcastle diocese has not been made public, as the inquiry's terms of reference require that its work does not prejudice current or future criminal or civil proceedings. I stand here today, joining the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, endorsing the words of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse. I do so not just as a senator for New South Wales but also as Premier of New South Wales from December 2009 to March 2011. I acknowledge that on 22 October this year the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, delivered an apology to survivors of institutional sexual abuse on behalf of the New South Wales government. In doing so, she said: On behalf of the Government and people of NSW, to every survivor, I apologise deeply and unreservedly—for the pain they have suffered, and for the failure of governments and institutions to protect them when they needed it most. I join with Premier Berejiklian in expressing that apology. The stark reality the royal commission lays bare is that our nation failed thousands of young people entrusted to institutions that were supposed to care for them but, instead, abused them. Residential institutions, out-of-home placements, schools, churches, sporting groups, cultural and other community organisations, and youth detention centres perpetrated violence and sexual abuse on those in their care. These organisations failed to acknowledge, punish or protect future victims. They failed to care for the survivor. This failure is doubly compounded by state and national public authorities, for they both failed in their duty to protect children and young people directly in their care and, in some instances, in their responsibilities to properly investigate and prosecute. For too long, victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse have suffered in silence. They have now broken that silence with courage and with honesty and by speaking out through the royal commission. The commissioners listened. They understood. They helped us all understand. The commission has made serious and extensive recommendations, and these are being accepted by the government with the support of the opposition. It is incumbent upon all of us, legislators and the wider community, to ensure we act now and in the future to implement these recommendations. The silence of conspiracy and cover-up, of inaction and denial on the part of institutions, is now broken. Australia cannot be silent anymore. We will not deny the suffering of survivors and we cannot say we did not know how to keep children safe in institutional settings, in the future. Anthony and Chrissie Foster broke the silence, during World Youth Day, in 2008. They brought before us their daughters' truth. Now the parliament has spoken and expressed its sorrow for Emma, for Katie and for all the thousands of children our nation's institutions have failed. I also acknowledge that the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, apologised. On 4 October this year, in the presence of Pope Francis, at the Synod for Bishops in the Vatican, Fisher apologised: For the shameful deeds of some priests, religious and lay people, perpetrated upon you or other young people just like you, and the terrible damage that has done; for the failure of too many bishops and others to respond appropriately when abuse was identified, and to do all in their power to keep you safe; and for the damage thus done to the Church’s credibility and to your trust … I welcome these words. However, the reality is that the leadership of the Catholic Church in Australia and in the Vatican have yet to take sufficient steps to address the culture of clericalism and the flawed ecclesiology that encouraged the extensive and systematic abuse of children in the church's care. The words we say today in the Australian Senate cannot repair this damage or compensate for this failing of our nation's public and private institutions. But they can begin our determination to do what we as a nation can to give comfort, support, assistance and, importantly, justice to survivors. These words must compel us to act. We must ensure that children and young people in institutions, or anywhere else in our care, are safe from violence and abuse now and in the future. 13:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales After decades of enforced silence, business in our parliament was suspended last month to publicly acknowledge and apologise for the pain that was caused by institutional child sexual abuse. I cannot imagine how that must have felt for those who have spent years striving to be heard and striving to be believed. I can only add my voice to what has already been said. I, like the rest of the nation, am truly sorry. I am sorry for what was done to you, and I am sorry for what was not done for you. It is truly unforgiveable. It was impossible not to be moved by the stories of deeply personal grief and betrayal that were revealed at the royal commission. All of Australia has heard witness after witness speaking with the perfect eloquence of truth. It shouldn't have taken a royal commission for these voices to be heard and to be believed, yet for many it was the first time that they were. Every Australian now knows how children suffered in places that they should have felt safe—in their schools, in their scout halls, in their churches and in their beds. This is uncomfortable knowledge. But that discomfort is not something that we should shy away from; it is something that should motivate us. We do a great disservice to victims and survivors if we pass off what happened as the work of some other. The perpetrators held positions of authority and respect in our communities. It is wrong to say that evil happened; evil was done. Years ago, in a very different context, thinkers grappled with the concept of the banality of evil—and their conclusions hold some truth for us today. These abuses happened among us. These horrible acts were done by people who led otherwise respectful lives; they were ignored by others who found it easier to stay silent in institutions that were happy for children to pay the price for maintaining their public reputations. We cannot begin our reckoning with that past until we recognise our culpability as a community for what occurred, and we cannot complete that reckoning until we make sure that the past cannot be repeated. I know that the act of appearing before the royal commission and reliving what happened took a toll on many people. So too did the years of advocacy and the battle for justice that came before it. Victims and survivors did this not just for themselves but to make sure that no other child would have to live through what they did. The royal commission has generated a comprehensive list of reforms, and there is no excuse or reason for resiling from them. As the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said in the other place, Labor will, wherever we sit in this parliament in coming years, unequivocally support the implementation of the royal commission, with no discounting or delay. This is something we owe to the children whose suffering brought about the royal commission. It is also something we owe to those yet to come. The apology has been described as a once-in-a-generation event. It must not become a 'once-a-generation event'. This must never happen again. 13:13 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia On behalf of Centre Alliance—including my Senate colleague Rex Patrick and the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie—I rise to speak on the national apology to Australian survivors and victims of child sexual abuse. In doing so, I endorse the sentiments expressed last month in support of this motion by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. I commend them and the contributions made today in this place, because the apology acknowledged the failure of Australian governments since Federation to afford children the protection they surely deserve. Australia is on a mercy mission to ask childhood victims of institutional abuse to forgive us, to find it in their hearts to accept our collective, heartfelt apology for the heinous crimes they endured and that shame us as a nation. We're ashamed of the sexual abuse committed against terrified children in orphanages, churches, children's homes, recreational groups and foster care by those who were mistakenly trusted to care for them. In many cases, powerful people in taxpayer funded state-care positions abused the public faith put in them by turning a blind eye to what was happening. Others were more sinister in their offending, as one case in my home state illustrated. In 2015, Families SA child protection carer Shannon McCoole was sentenced to 35 years in jail with a nonparole period of 28 years for sexually abusing babies and young children in state care. McCoole was also the head administrator of a highly sophisticated dark web child pornography site. He was arrested only after Danish police identified one of his photos and informed local authorities. McCoole's crimes prompted SA's own child-protection system royal commission. That inquiry heard that a colleague had reported McCoole for the suspected rape of a six-year-old girl a year before his arrest. But because McCoole had gained the trust of his managers, they dismissed the complaint without even reporting it to authorities. I'm still shocked that he could offend for so long under the nose of a government department and that reports of his evil could be ignored by that same department. All the while, his offending continued, and each time another little life was forever damaged by his putrid actions. The National Redress Scheme, the National Office for Child Safety and the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations will indeed go a long way towards fixing the problems within institutions. But, sadly, the motion before us cannot be taken to mean that child sexual abuse is a thing of the past. The only way to tackle it is to be ruthless in identifying and reporting offenders and to do our utmost to ensure that children are not put in harm's way. First and foremost, that means listening and acting when suspicions are raised rather than ignoring, dismissing or minimising them. Like domestic violence and elder abuse, child sexual abuse, especially in the form of incest, has long been and in many cases still is taboo. Despite the pain involved, Australia is becoming a more mature nation. We are confronting our past, acknowledging our failures and making more amends and efforts to eliminate multiple cycles of violence. Unfortunately, that can't be said for millions of other children throughout the world. In this respect, Australia is leading by example. However, in this global online age we must be ever alert to how the problem of child exploitation is continually changing. As the McCoole case proves, the internet looms large in those changes. With public institutions now becoming more tightly controlled, it's fair to say that predators are turning to the internet to create their own private groups. The eradication of child abuse in any form is and will always be a work in progress, and it is one that this and future parliaments must continue to be engaged with for the good of our nation. This motion goes some way towards expressing the sorrow and guilt we all feel as a nation for the loss of innocence experienced by victims and survivors. It acknowledges this parliament's responsibility towards participating in their healing. It is undeniably our responsibility to say to the victims who prevailed over their torment—and, sadly, to those who didn't—that we are deeply sorry that they were treated like easy targets and not precious children, abused rather than nurtured, starved of love rather than nourished and encouraged, and left out in the cold when they should have been brought into the warm. We can't say 'sorry' enough for the cries for help that were ignored or never heard, the stories of extreme cruelty that were never believed, and the tales of physical, emotional and sexual torture that were pushed aside. But, most of all, we are so sorry that it has taken this long for Australia to properly take notice and finally take action against a despicable wrong. The royal commission's final report reveals insights gleaned from over 8,000 private sessions with survivors, along with institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The gut-wrenching facts are that the average age of victims when first abused was 10 years old, over 58 per cent of survivors confirm the abuse took place in an institution managed by a religious organisation—primarily Catholic—32.5 per cent were in a government-run institution; and 10.5 per cent were in a non-government, non-religious institution. Alarmingly, of the survivors who provided information about the frequency of their abuse, most said that they had experienced multiple episodes and many by multiple people. And this is just skimming the surface of the sickening prevalence of such crimes over many decades. I thank the royal commission for acknowledging that people have been dying to change things and get the justice they deserve. We will all be doing everything in our power to deliver on its recommendations. We will use our power and authority to take action without compromise. But, above all, to those victims who stepped forward to bravely share their experiences, we owe a profound thanks. Without this, we would not be where we are today. So thank you, on behalf of generations to come. And, finally, I would like to add my voice to say, however belatedly, we believe you, we respect you, we applaud you, and we owe you an everlasting debt of gratitude. 13:21 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to contribute some remarks to the debate on the motion of Senator Cormann. I'd also like to acknowledge those of my colleagues who have spoken before me. Our children are our greatest gifts. Their innocence should always be protected. The crimes against these children who were robbed of their innocence have stained our nation. The cover-ups of these crimes have stained our nation. The fact that these children were not heard or believed has stained our nation. The stain on the nation has touched all of us. It's heartbreaking. I want to pay tribute to the so many who have helped us to get to this point. Whether they be survivors, advocates, in the legal profession or policymakers, I thank you. To those who made the painful and brave decision to come forward to the royal commission, thank you. You've made a difference and you are part of the reason why atrocities like these will hopefully never happen again. I'd like to acknowledge the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for setting up the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2012. I thank the former Prime Minister for her courage and for ensuring that the royal commission got to the bottom of all these harrowing stories, because her acknowledgement and her belief that the children should be heard have done more to protect the children of the future than anyone else has done. The applause she received and the way the room erupted when she was in Canberra last month for the national apology is a testament to the profound impact she had on the lives of so many. Today, we honour every survivor in this country. We hear you, we believe in you and we are so sorry. We also honour and remember those who are no longer with us. The words spoken in this place today are for you. Our words are also for your families. As many have said in the other place, as a nation, we failed you, and this will always be our shame. The perpetrating institutions of this abuse, who covered it up and refused to be held accountable, failed dismally. They failed these children and they failed all of us. As former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said back in 2012, 'These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject.' I'm sorry for this pain that can never be undone. I don't think there is any state or church in Australia that wasn't touched by this evil. As a woman of faith, I'm deeply appalled at the institutions and the churches that failed so abysmally to stand for the values they were supposed to represent. I'm profoundly sorry for the experiences that people have had at the hands of people who should have known better, at the hands of those who breached their trust—trust given by our society, trust that was so disgracefully destroyed. Nothing can take away the deep, harrowing sadness, pain, emptiness, helplessness and betrayal that you have all lived with for too long. Nothing can take away the tears and the emotional exhaustion that still fatigues you to this day. You carry the pain with you every day, and I am so sorry for the things you have missed out on, the things you've been unable to enjoy, the things you've been held back from and the lives you will never get back. There are survivors who have spoken about not wanting to go on anymore. They feel crushed under the astonishing weight of the pain they carry with them every single day. Thank you for showing up, for fighting and for being part of the process. Thank you for being brave and giving strength to others who are yet to, or may never, share what happened to them. I know a lot of words are used in this place, and I know that actions speak louder than words. There has been great momentum from the royal commission, but we need to keep moving forward. As the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, rightly put last month, it is now up to those in power, no longer just the survivors and the victims and their advocates. Sadly, even though I wish we could, we can't promise a country where abuse no longer exists. But we can promise a country where we commit to hearing and believing our children. We can commit to ensuring that we, as a government and a community, do our very best to ensure such abuse never happens again. We can ensure that we continue to do what the royal commission did so well, and that was to listen to the people whose lives have been damaged by treatment that they did not deserve and that they did not ask for. In acknowledging how real this pain is, we can commit to an effective redress system. I won't for a second pretend that the National Redress Scheme can make up for the pain, the suffering and the trauma experienced by survivors, but redress is a vital step along the path to healing for survivors of child sexual abuse and is a vital step for all of us as a nation and a community. It's incumbent on all of us as parliamentarians to work together to get the rollout of the National Redress Scheme right. This is imperative. Survivors have been through so much and have waited so long. It is absolutely imperative that we get this right. I think it's so important that we continue to work together to right the wrongs of years gone by and to ensure that those events can never be repeated so that the institutions and the sporting groups and the Scouts and the churches that are entrusted with the care of children actually deliver that care. The stain left on our nation is something we will have to live with. These churches and institutions must work to restore the faith and trust of the community that they serve. There's been so much damage and hurt, and trust has been broken. It's time for healing; it's time for our nation to say sorry. I will close by simply saying that we are sorry. I am so sorry. We believe you. I believe you. 13:29 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I rise to add my voice to those who have already honoured the bravery of the survivors of sexual abuse and the profound impact their stories have had on our national history and shared future. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague Senator Siewert for being a powerful voice, through the royal commission, in listening and understanding and working with a journey of healing with the survivors of sexual abuse. The royal commission took over four years and more than 2½ thousand referrals to reach its conclusion. The stories exposed the shocking, systematic abuse of children at the hands of powerful institutions, institutions like the church, schools, foster homes and orphanages, sporting clubs and many others. They are institutions that committed acts of unspeakable cruelty, where perpetrators were given safe harbour for the rape of young children and were allowed to continue this shocking behaviour with impunity. I say to the survivors: I can't imagine your pain; the hurt; the tears of shame; or the kids alone at night, crying themselves to sleep, not believed, wondering what they did wrong to bring this on themselves. I say to you, the survivors: thank you for your bravery, for sharing your stories, because now many of these powerful institutions have had their day of reckoning. They were exposed throughout the royal commission of caring more about their own reputations and protecting their own colleagues than they cared for the children who were under their protection, with the resistance, the lack of remorse and the lack of empathy eventually giving way to a national call for action to stop this from ever happening again. They were only held to account because of your bravery, your courage—the courage of survivors—and your determination to see justice being done. On behalf of the Greens, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I want to thank those of you who have reached into your traumatic pasts to share your stories. You have contributed to some of the changes already made, and you will be instrumental in ensuring reforms that are yet to come. I cannot imagine your pain or the courage needed to share your stories, but, please, take pride in the fact that you have truly helped to shape the course of history in this country. You've created this moment, a moment of national determination that nothing like what you have endured at the hands of the powerful will ever happen again to future generations. We salute your bravery. I'm certain that many survivors have still kept that trauma to themselves, to be shared only with closest loved ones, some taking this secret to the grave. For many of you, putting down your past on paper, speaking your lives into the commission's transcripts of evidence, would have been too much to bear. You must carry that pain around with you every day. I had the great privilege of being in the Great Hall only a few weeks ago, and it was clear that that pain was still palpable. It was raw. It was on the surface. Many of you are being asked to trust another institution to deliver justice when you've been let down so badly, for so many years, by other powerful organisations. On behalf of my colleagues, I pledge to do everything we can in this chamber to stop this from ever happening again. There is no more solemn duty than to ensure that children can thrive in a caring, loving and supportive environment, free from even the slightest sign of physical and mental trauma. All children should be safe. We owe them nothing less. This royal commission was also due to the bravery of others—people who were prepared to speak truth to power, who were prepared to sacrifice their own advancement to speak on behalf of the voiceless. Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox, who was the whistleblower who saw it as his responsibility not to stay quiet and not to let this suffering continue, should be honoured. He chose to publicly expose the church's covering up of evidence about paedophile priests and how police investigations were methodically silenced. We thank him. It was Prime Minister Julia Gillard who responded to Mr Fox's evidence, using the powers that only executive governments have to launch a royal commission. It was a call that the Greens had made on a number of occasions, and we wholeheartedly endorsed this move by the former Prime Minister. We saw only a few weeks ago how grateful the many survivors were for Ms Gillard to be there in the room and to have allowed the course of history to change forever. That is our duty: to care for people; to ensure that justice is done; to make right the wrongs of the past; to acknowledge that we can never undo the suffering, the pain, the trauma or the hurt but we can change the future that young children are born into. That is the test of whether this apology will have force, whether this apology is one that moves beyond an acknowledgement of the past and, indeed, allows us to change our future. Our solemn pledge is to do everything that we can do to make sure that these sins are never repeated. 13:37 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I too rise today to offer my most sincere apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for having the coverage to set up the royal commission and I thank Senator Cormann and Senator Wong for leading the apology to victims and survivors in this place today. I want to start quickly with my own story. My father was sent out here as a child migrant from England and he grew up at Fairbridge in Western Australia. Thankfully, my father was not a victim of child sexual abuse, but others at Fairbridge were: children that he knew and children that he loved. His brother was also sent out, and what they did suffer was hardship and abuse, but it was not sexual, and I think that's one of the great areas that we have to pursue into the future: that children in institutions were treated appallingly. They were beaten. They were put to work. They were just not treated as human beings, and my father was in that category. I know firsthand what it feels like to have your family ripped apart. I've just recently met my cousin in the UK. I look like my grandmother. I didn't know that before. Of course, I never knew my paternal grandmother. I look like my cousins. I share the same name as them. All of this my father lost, and it was lost to me and my children. That is one of the legacies of children in institutions. Of course, to then abuse children in the way that happened in our country is unbelievable. To have people in positions of trust that sexually abuse those children, that thought that those children were there for them to abuse and to sexually abuse—and we know that it ruined lives. We know it tore families apart, and what has happened in our institutions, in our schools and in our churches is absolutely unforgiveable. The best that I can do today is to stand here as one of the many senators and offer my apologies. But I want to focus particularly on First Nations Australians, because it should not have taken that royal commission. In my own state of Western Australia, there's no doubt that First Nations people have been treated harshly and cruelly in the land that is their own. In Western Australia, the first royal commission was held in 1905. We knew then that children in institutions were being raped—we knew that. That inquiry was not about the sexual abuse of children; it was about the harsh treatment of natives, as they were called in those days. But, nevertheless, the abuse of children, the rape of children, the harsh treatment of children became a feature of that royal commission. Nothing changed. In fact, after 1905 we saw a harsher regime. AO Neville eventually became the protector of Aboriginal people in Australia, and we saw a regime that became much more harsh. Another royal commission, the Moseley commission, in 1935, looked again at what was happening to First Nations people. Again, one of the consequences was that that royal commission heard about the sexual exploitation, the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in care. We know, as the colonisers of this country, that we have had a history of murder, of taking children away—and it goes on. There were more reports. In 1997, we had the Bringing them home report. There are horrific stories in there. Of course, there were many people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who were not able to tell their stories to the royal commission. I stand here today and apologise to those people, to those victims and to their families, to the many thousands who were not able to tell those stories. There are many stories in the Bringing them home report. One of the institutions particularly close to me is Sister Kate's, which was an institution set up in the 1930s by a nun who took light-skinned children to, allegedly, give them a better life. I know that because my mother taught the children from Sister Kate's at Queens Park Primary School. Some of those children were sexually abused at Sister Kate's. This is unbelievable, but anyone could come and knock on the door and offer to take those children home for the weekend and home for the holidays, and many of those children were sexually abused. Sadly, I'm not sure if any of that got before the royal commission, but it is in the Bringing them home report. So it should not have taken a royal commission to get to where we are today. I applaud the men who, in that tearful way, told their stories on television and who, over and over again, were just not believed. I would hope that, if we've learnt nothing else, we have learnt that when children tell us an injustice has been done to them that the first thing we should do is believe them, because the damage that has been done is there, and it will continue into the next generation and the generation after that. From Western Australia's perspective, from 1905, when those first official reports were made, to where we stand today, we knew what was happening, at least to First Nations children. In the 1930s, we should have known what was happening in institutions. It took until Prime Minister Gillard had the courage to set up the royal commission for those people's stories to be told once again and for us to now stand in this place and say that we believe them. I would hope, as we've heard other senators in this place say today, that this would never happen again. But it's on all of us to make sure that children who are in institutions—and Western Australia, sadly, is leading the way. We have many, many children in out-of-home care. Most of them are First Nations children. In fact, the Healing Foundation said just recently that, of the children whose stories were told at the royal commission, 14 per cent were First Nations children. This is unforgivable. We have to do better. If that takes laws and it takes dollars, if that takes investing in early childhood and investing in communities, then that is what has to happen—because we can never allow what the royal commission has uncovered to happen again. My apologies are on the Senate record. 13:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today I will add a few words to this heartfelt apology being made by the Senate and by this parliament to victims of institutional child sex abuse in Australia. The sad truth is that people I care about deeply are among the victims of such heinous acts, acts that have life-long consequences. I want to acknowledge all of those who fought so bravely for the acknowledgement and recognition of this issue—for redress, for apology, for justice and, most importantly, to recognise that we need to listen to children and that we must have robust institutions and a society that never allows this to happen again. The evidence before the royal commission exposed heinous crimes perpetuated against vulnerable children. And the evidence largely shows that it should have been seen for what it was at the time—that there were enough people who should have known at the time that something needed to be done. Many children did try and speak up about their abuse but were ignored. The reputations of adults and institutions were privileged over the vulnerable victims of crime. I've spent some time reading the narrative stories in the royal commission's report—and there are thousands of them. In many of those cases someone knew, or should have known, about the abuse that was happening. In other cases children had been intimidated and frightened into remaining quiet. That powerful people in institutions should privilege themselves over the charges in their care is in and of itself also a heinous crime. A failure to provide a protective environment, a failure to believe children, and a culture that diminished their rights and voices of children—environments like that must never be allowed to fester in our nation again. There are very deeply shocking accounts for which our nation must hold itself properly accountable. The case studies and private sessions left absolutely no doubt that a great many people, thousands and thousands of Australians, were injured by being subjected to sexual and other forms of abuse while in institutions or in connection with institutions with responsibility. I read stories of child protection systems returning children to abusive families where convicted paedophiles resided. We heard stories of institutions where systemic abuse occurred. The pages of the royal commission's report and, most importantly, the narratives and personal stories reveal the history of people who had their childhoods utterly shattered. Their childhoods were taken from them and their trust in people was broken and damaged. I really encourage people to look at the private sessions that have been written up so that you can listen not to this parliament but to the voices of those who have been missing in this debate for too long. From the evidence presented to the royal commission, their injuries, both physical and psychological, have been severe and lifelong and play out in a great many ways in terms of people's personal relationships, their employment, their children and their involvement in the criminal justice system. The impact of these crimes is lifelong. It was also clear, as I said before, that in a great many cases the abuse was known about and not stopped or prevented and perpetrators were not held to account. I'm going to share one of those stories with the chamber today. Kaden was made a ward of the state when he was three. He spent time in a number of children's homes and juvenile justice centres in New South Wales in the 1980s. He was physically and sexually abused in at least three of those institutions. They were, according to Kaden, 'a cesspit for paedophiles—one big paedophile ring'. As well as the abuse he experienced at the hands of at least 15 to 20 workers at the institutions, Kaden told the commissioner that the boys were beaten and restrained excessively. He said: I've seen kids get their arms broken and their shoulders popped out ... it was horrible. To escape the abuse at one such institution, Kaden began running away to Kings Cross. He said: I've been a heroin addict since I was 10, and started shooting up at the age of 10 and you know, suppressed the things that happened to me. I never wanted to talk about it. When I was stoned, I could deal with it. When I weren't stoned, it was just, yeah, it played on my mind. This young man grew up to become very violent. He said: I had a lot of anger in me ... I was very violent drunk, so I stopped drinking ... I believe if things like that never happened to me, I ... probably wouldn't be in jail. Most of my crime is violent assault ... It stuffed me up, me childhood, basically. I've been in and out of institutions all me life. I'm starting to break the cycle now. He's currently on methadone, and he said: I want to try to get off that as well and live a normal life ... but one step at a time. One reason Kaden chose to start speaking up about his abuse a couple of years ago was that, as he said: I don't cry ... My people, my family, they think I'm heartless, and they don't understand, like the effects that it had on me as a child, because I don't speak about what happened to me, and they've only known me to be violent and they don't know why. As well as his issues with anger, Kaden finds his relationships with other men difficult. He said: I can't be comfortable with men ... My uncles and my real father, they can't show no affection towards me. Like if they go to touch me, I pull away from them ... I told [my father] things had happened to me as a child and he tried to comfort me and I pushed him ... 'You can't touch me, Dad.' Kaden received copies of his records with the help of the Legal Aid service. He said: There was a lot of stuff in there that just blew me away. There were things in there that I didn't even know ... that helped me, with a bit of closure and that. But there was a lot of stuff that was upsetting ... I was placed in a paedophile ring and they knew about it, but there was nothing done. Kaden told the commissioner that there are reports in his file about him being sexually assaulted at two of the institutions. He said: It's written. It's actually written there in my documents— but nothing was done about it. He said: I come out with it, I said. 'He's touching kids,' you know, and I was all hushed up ... and sent to another joint ... They made out I was being violent towards the other kids and got me sent to [another institution]. A lot of shit got covered up. When a female worker at one of the institutions tried to help, 'she got bullied and sacked from there because she wanted to know what was going on and she tried to come out with it'. Kaden chose to come forward to the royal commission. He said: If I can stop one kid being touched, it's better than nothing. At the end of the day ... something's got to be done about the institutions ... I honestly believe that ... even myself, I was being bounced between [those institutions] ... basically, I was just being passed around, you know. Kaden told the commissioner: I'm still here to talk about it, so that's the main thing. There's a lot of people that I was in the institutions with that are not alive no more, you know, take their own lives or OD'd or whatever the case may be, but I'm still here to talk about it, so that's the main thing. There are thousands of these stories on the royal commission's website, and I encourage members of this place and the community to take stock of what has truly happened in our nation and the blind eye that we turned to the abuse of our nation's young people. If this place, if this chamber, has any purpose at all it should be to make sure that we listen to people who have been forgotten in our nation—to listen and act to ensure effective redress and, most importantly, to protect children in our nation from now on and always. I know abuse still happens in our society. It happens in families. It happens in institutions. We can't pretend that grand statements in this chamber will prevent that overnight, but we can and must do more. We have been too slow in picking up and adopting the recommendations of the royal commission. It has taken, frankly, too long to see many of those recommendations implemented. I have paid close attention to those recommendations, and they did not make their recommendations lightly. The evidence from victims of this abuse give a clear mandate to the recommendations of the royal commission. They should be implemented faithfully, and the task for all of us now in this parliament is to follow, faithfully, the recommendations that have been made by the commission to protect our nation's children. The commission got its job done very efficiently, in a timely manner, but it is of great concern to me that the time line for a great many of the recommendations has already gone a long way beyond what the royal commission recommended they should be. If there is one message I have for the chamber today it is that we have been too slow not only over the great vast history of this abuse but also in responding to the need of making sure this never happens again. Revealed in the pages of the royal commission's final report is a history of the betrayal and violations of the hearts, bodies and wellbeing of thousands of fellow Australians, Australians who were children at the time of this abuse. It should be unimaginable that our institutions or individuals could have participated in, perpetuated, tolerated, covered up and condoned every aspect of this abuse. We need to face up as a nation to exactly what has happened, to provide meaningful redress and to say sorry as we do in this place today and to mean it. It is critical that we take the human rights of children in Australia seriously and uphold them. We must listen to the voices of children who have been so much missing from this debate. 13:58 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria In rising to speak on the motion moved by Senator Cormann, the apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by those who have already spoken: the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cormann, Senator Wong, and members and senators from all parties and the crossbench. There are times when our parliament needs to rise above party divisions, and this is certainly one of them. I recognise the sincerity of the emotions experienced and expressed by all of the speakers. I want to acknowledge the leadership shown by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in November 2012. It will be, perhaps, her finest legacy. As she said at that time, too many children have suffered child abuse but have also seen other adults let them down. They've not only had their trust betrayed by the abuser but other adults who could have acted to assist them have failed to do so. There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil. Julia Gillard was determined that Australia could no longer avert its eyes— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Kitching, you'll be in continuation when debate on the matter is resumed. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 34 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I advise the Senate that Senator Birmingham will be absent from question time all week due to overseas ministerial business. In Senator Birmingham's absence I will represent the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment; Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Education; Senator Canavan will represent the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Energy on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday; and Senator Fifield will represent the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Energy on Thursday. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Prime Minister 34 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. An Auditor-General's report into Tourism Australia during Prime Minister Morrison's term as its managing director between 2004 and 2006 shows numerous anomalies and concerns over contracts worth $184 million. Can the minister confirm that, in the period leading up to Prime Minister Morrison's dismissal as Managing Director of Tourism Australia, his agency faced a series of audits and a review of its contractual processes ordered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet amidst serious concerns about its governance? 14:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I take that question on notice. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a supplementary question. 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can the minister also confirm that the Auditor-General found that, while Prime Minister Morrison was Managing Director of Tourism Australia, information was kept from the board and procurement guidelines were breached? 14:02 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I can confirm is that the Prime Minister has a great commitment to the future success of our tourism sector. It's a very important sector in the Australian economy. Many small businesses across the Australian economy have benefited from the Prime Minister's strong commitment—for example, to ensure that small businesses in the tourism sector have access to an internationally more competitive business tax rate, which is something that Labor initially opposed and then decided to support. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU It's on direct relevance, Mr President. The question was about the Prime Minister keeping information from the board and failing to follow procurement guidelines. It had nothing to do with tax rates. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, Senator Wong has reminded the Senate of the question. I note you have 30 seconds remaining to answer the question. Senator CORMANN HDA In relation to matters to do with the report by the Auditor-General, I have already taken the substantive question on notice. I'm now just making the broader point that the Prime Minister has a longstanding outstanding track record in supporting a vibrant tourism industry for Australia as a very important part of a successful Australian economy. (Time expired) Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! During questions I ask for silence from both sides of the chamber. Senator Wong, a final supplementary question. 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can the minister confirm that the Auditor-General found that Tourism Australia, whilst Prime Minister Morrison was its managing director, requested that tenderers commence work on contracts worth $184 million before contracts were even executed and that Tourism Australia's risk mitigation was—and I quote the Auditor-General—'ineffective'? 14:03 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I don't have the report that Senator Wong is quoting from in front of me. I will not take her quotes, which most probably are taken out of context, on face value. I will seek advice and get back to the chamber. Economy 35 14:04 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on the strength of the Australian economy? 14:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Indeed I can. Under our government, our economy is strong and continuing to grow. Our economy now is into its 28th year of continuous growth. Just last Tuesday the Reserve Bank of Australia not only noted the strong 3.4 per cent growth over the past year but also upgraded its economic growth forecast for 2018 and 2019 to an average 3.5 per cent growth over those two years. This stronger economic growth has a real impact on real Australians. It means real jobs for Australian workers. Indeed, 1.15 million new jobs have been created so far since we came into office. Remember, when we came into government we inherited a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position. Today the economy is stronger, the economic growth outlook is stronger, employment growth is much stronger and the unemployment rate is well below where it was anticipated it would be. In the last financial year alone, 2017-18, about 350,000 new jobs were created in the Australian economy, and Australia's employment growth is stronger than in any of the G7 nations. The unemployment rate fell to five per cent in September. Back in December 2013 the shadow Treasurer was saying that the test was whether we could keep it below 6¼ per cent. I'm still waiting for his letter to confirm that we are the superior economic managers, because he, as Treasurer, left behind a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position. We know that stronger growth and more jobs mean higher wages over time. We know that it means more revenue for government to pay for the important services provided by government. That is a key reason our final budget outcome last year was $19.3 billion better off than forecast. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Stoker, a supplementary question. 14:06 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland What is the government doing to ensure continued growth in the Australian economy and a better standard of living for all Australians? Senator Pratt I0T Not much. 14:06 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The Labor Senator over there said, 'Not much.' Well, let me tell you, we inherited a weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position from Labor as a result of a misguided, reckless, higher-taxing agenda of the past, which Labor wants to bring back. Our government, despite the strong track record over our first five years in government, will not be complacent. We know there is much more to be done to lock in continued growth and more jobs for the future. That is why we're backing small business. That is why the Prime Minister, when he was in Queensland last year, was able to talk to small businesses in Queensland about our lower taxes for small business. He was able to talk about the continuation of our instant asset write-off to allow businesses to invest in new equipment, which will increase their output and their productivity. And we are backing our farmers. Since we last met, we've announced the creation of the Future Drought Fund, which comes on top of— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question. 14:07 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland What is standing in the way of more jobs and more growth in the Australian economy? 14:07 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Stoker, thank you for that very important question. The only thing standing in the way of continued economic growth, of continued opportunity for Australian families to get ahead, would be a return to a recklessly high-taxing Labor government. A Labor government under Mr Shorten would pursue a recklessly higher-taxing, antibusiness, class warfare, politics-of-envy agenda, which would make the Australian economy weaker, which would lead to less investment and lower growth, fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Labor want to pile $200 billion of new taxes onto the economy—taxes that would choke the economy and put jobs at risk, no question. They want to put new taxes on property investors, which would mean less investment, lower property values and higher rents. They want to impose new taxes on family trusts so that small and family businesses would find it harder to get ahead. They even want to put new taxes on retirees. Wherever you look, more Labor taxes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call Senator Collins, I'm going to observe that for a Monday there was substantially too much noise across the chamber, particularly from my left, during that answer. In a week when there is a little bit more attention than normal on this chamber, I ask us to think of our better selves. Prime Minister 36 14:09 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Prime Minister Morrison was sacked as Tourism Australia's managing director only a year and a half into his contract. The Howard government's Minister for Small Business and Tourism Fran Bailey has confirmed: … it was a unanimous decision to get rid of Mr Morrison by the board and the minister. I ask the minister: why was Prime Minister Morrison sacked as Tourism Australia's managing director? 14:10 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, what I would say in relation to the ANAO report, which apparently was released in 2008, is it's very good that the Labor Party is coming in here with very current questions in relation to current reports! The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 The point of order is relevance. The minister is answering an earlier question that he took on notice, not the question I asked him, which is: why was Prime Minister Morrison sacked? The PRESIDENT I0Q The minister has been speaking for 17 seconds. You have reminded him of the specific nature of your question. There are times when ministers can bring back information, but I will give him an opportunity to continue his answer because he has only been speaking for 17 seconds. Senator CORMANN HDA What is very clear from that question is that, while we on this side of the chamber have been working for families around Australia to ensure they have the best possible opportunity to get ahead, Mr Shorten had his dirt unit in full swing, desperately clasping to find— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Let me just tell you something: Mr Morrison did a great job as a great advocate for the Australian tourism industry. He did a great job as immigration minister, when he fixed up the chaos at our borders which you created. He did a great job as social services minister, when he initiated and implemented welfare reform. He did a great job as Treasurer. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Hinch 2O4 A point of order: it is only the first day back, but it is impossible to hear people back here. The PRESIDENT I0Q You're not the only one who can't hear the minister, Senator Hinch; hence I was trying to call people to order and to have some courtesy for their colleagues. Senator CORMANN HDA The tourism industry across Australia knows what a strong advocate for the tourism sector Prime Minister Morrison is. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance. There was one question: why was he sacked as Tourism Australia's managing director? That is the only question, and he hasn't come close to it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, I remind you of the terms of the question asked by Senator Collins. Senator CORMANN HDA Clearly the Labor Party doesn't want to listen to the strong support of the Australian tourism sector for the Prime Minister's performance when it comes to promoting policies that actually advance and support jobs and opportunity in the tourism sector. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU It's direct relevance. One question: why was he sacked? He hasn't come close to it. I ask you to call the minister to return to the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, Senator Cormann: Senator Wong has reminded you of the terms of the question. You need to be directly relevant to the preface to the question or the specific part of the question that Senator Wong has quoted. I note, however, that was the end of the question and the minister is entitled to be directly relevant to any part of the question. I have called him to the question. Senator CORMANN HDA I am being relevant to current circumstances. Senator Wong is— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong, I have called the minister to the terms of the question, as you requested. He, I think, got six words out then before you rose to your feet. I am going to let him continue the sentence. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, even you could barely contain a smile. I don't think saying 'I'm relevant to current circumstances' is what the standing orders contemplate. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will let the minister complete a sentence before I rule. The minister needs to be directly relevant to part of the question asked. Senator CORMANN HDA There is no stronger nor more effective advocate for the tourism sector than Prime Minister Morrison, who has, of course, got a great track record as an effective former immigration minister, former social services minister, and former Treasurer. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I'll try again. This morning, highly respected former Deputy Prime Minister and former Chair of Tourism Australia Tim Fischer indicated he is bound by a confidentiality agreement preventing him from saying why Scott Morrison was sacked. I ask again: why was Prime Minister Morrison sacked as Tourism Australia's managing director? Why doesn't the Prime Minister think Australians deserve to know why he was sacked? 14:14 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The Prime Minister is a very open and transparent person. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Please resume your seat, Senator Cormann. Senator Polley interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Polley, while I'm speaking, please take a breath. Senator Hinch has already said he can't hear the minister. If I can't hear Senator Cormann, there is by far too much noise in this chamber. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much, Mr President. I'm not personally aware of the employment circumstances of more than a decade ago. What I am aware of is that Mr Morrison fixed up Labor's mess at the borders as immigration minister. He stopped the boats. He also implemented very important social welfare reform as Minister for Social Services. He also, of course, has presided over stronger growth and more jobs being created in his capacity at Treasurer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 I remind the Senate again, the question is: why was Prime Minister Morrison sacked as director of Tourism Australia? Senator CORMANN HDA On the point of order: I directly addressed that point by making the point that I wasn't personally aware of the employment circumstances of more than a decade ago, but I have provided further information in the context of the question asked. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order: the minister is correct; he has noted that he is not aware of the circumstances. What I will say is that, under my reading of the standing orders, further information provided must also be directly relevant to the question or part of the question asked. I hasten to remind those asking questions that they only need to be directly relevant to part of the question asked, not all of it. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much, Mr President. Of course, the question asked goes to the performance of the Prime Minister. Let me say again, the Prime Minister has been an outstanding performer when it comes to fixing up Labor's mess at our borders, has been an outstanding performer when it comes to initiating and implementing social welfare reform and has been an outstanding performer as Treasurer. The Australian people know that he is one of the strongest advocates there is for a stronger tourism sector across Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, a final supplementary question. 14:16 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Reports indicate that Prime Minister Morrison received a payout of more than $300,000 when he was sacked after only a year and a half as managing director of Tourism Australia. How much was Prime Minister Morrison paid when he was sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia, and why doesn't the Prime Minister think Australians deserve to know how much he was paid? 14:17 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, the senator is asking questions about events, allegedly, that took place more than a decade and a half ago. I'm not personally aware of the employment circumstances at the time. What I do know is that Mr Morrison is highly regarded in the tourism sector as a very effective advocate and contributor to the tourism industry, just as he is highly regarded for his very effective contribution to delivering a stronger economy, more jobs and better opportunities for families around Australia to get ahead. Labor clearly has made a decision to come into this chamber today with the outcomes of the latest dirt unit work in the last sitting fortnight. Labor clearly has run out of ideas. They're running their dirt units through ancient history because they haven't got any policy to talk about and because they're so embarrassed by the negative impact on the economy of their high-taxing, reckless agenda. Small Business 38 14:18 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales My question is to the , Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Liberal-National government is supporting Australian small and family businesses by cutting taxes? 14:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Molan for his question. Those of us on this side of the chamber, the Liberal-National government of Australia, are delivering for the small and family businesses of Australia. During our time away from parliament colleagues, I had the opportunity to visit a number of states and, yet again, continue to talk to small and family businesses on the ground about how we, as a government, are putting in place the policies that will ensure that they are able to prosper and grow. We talked about delivering on our tax cuts for small and family businesses, reducing their tax rate down to 25 per cent five years earlier than planned. Why can we do it five years earlier than planned? Because we have put in place the right policies to ensure that we have a stronger economy. Small and family businesses in Australia will now be paying a 25 per cent tax rate five years earlier, in 2021-22. That means that millions and millions of small and family businesses across Australia will pay less tax sooner because of the policies of the Morrison government. Of course, I spoke to many businesses about the investments that they have made in their businesses as a result of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. We have, of course, extended that policy until 30 June 2019. I also met a number of businesses that have benefited from our investment in the Entrepreneurs' Program. This is about ensuring that those businesses who want the opportunity to become exporters are able to do this and to take advantage of all the opportunities that those of us on this side of the chamber have managed to put into place because we have signed up to free trade agreements. I also had the opportunity to visit Neil Thompson Smash Repairs with David Coleman, the member for Banks; and our fantastic Minister for Immigration— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a supplementary question. 14:21 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Is the minister aware of any risks to the government's tax plan for small and family businesses? 14:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think the Australian public would be aware of the threat to small and family businesses in the country. Of course, it is posed by those opposite, the Labor side of politics. Look at the policies that they are proposing for small and family businesses—policies that will quite literally see small and family businesses in Australia close their doors. There is the abolition of franking credits, something that is raised with me consistently as I talk to small and family businesses in Australia. There is Labor's attack on family trusts and, of course, their proposed changes to negative gearing. These will not hurt the big end of town. What they will do, though, is hit small and family businesses. There was an article written recently by Mr Mark Bouris. This is what he said: … the three tax changes promised by Labor are an attack on hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians. Frankly, Labor’s changes look punitive and unbalanced. They don’t hurt big corporations or the truly wealthy and they don’t apply to massive super funds — they only attack the little guy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a final supplementary question. Senator Cameron AI6 Ah, Michaelia, you've— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron! I'm going to take a very strict approach to noise during questions, so that I can hear them. 14:22 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales How can Australians ensure that small and family businesses continue to remain a strong priority of the federal government? 14:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Of course, a vote for a Liberal-National government is always going to be a vote to support the backbone of the Australian economy. And those, of course, are the up to 3.3 million small and family businesses employing almost seven million Australians. Whether it's our tax cuts, whether it's extending the instant asset write-off or whether it's ensuring that our small and family businesses are able to take into account the opportunities to become exporters and grow their businesses, we, on this side of the chamber, will always go into bat for small and family businesses. Why? Because we know that when Australia's small and family businesses succeed then our nation as a whole succeeds. What we will never do is put in place policies that attack small and family businesses, because a business that has to close employs no-one. We will always support small and family businesses so that they can prosper and grow and employ more Australians. (Time expired) Schools 39 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Senator Hon. Bridget McKenzie, Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation, representing the Minister for Education. Minister, at budget estimates the Department of Education indicated that there were no rules or regulations developed for the proposed $1.2 billion fund—the so-called 'choice and affordability fund'—for private schools, and that the figure was a decision by the government. Minister, where did the $1.2 billion price tag come from? And what role did the Catholic and independent schools play in coming up with that number? 14:24 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank the senator for her question. Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that every single child in this country—whether they go to a private school, whether they go to a Catholic school, whether they go, like the majority of regional students, to a state funded public school—will be able to access the same amount of funding according to their need. I find it incredible to stand here and be faced with those opposite, who actually think it's okay that if you are in grade 6 at St Joseph's in a town like Benalla you're entitled to get a different amount of funding based on your needs, as opposed to someone in grade 6 in Manjimup or someone in grade 6 in a place like— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi on a point of order. Senator Faruqi 250362 Mr President, my point of order is to relevance. My question was very specific about the $1.2 billion Choice and Affordability Fund: how did the government come up with that number, and what role did the Catholic and private school sector have in coming up with that number for the government? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, you have taken the opportunity to remind the minister of the question. I note the minister has one minute and 11 seconds remaining to answer. Senator McKENZIE 207825 The $1.2 billion is actually part of a broader $4.5 billion package to ensure that the transition of our needs based funding package for Australian school students is delivered on the ground in a way that maximises outcomes for our students. Those opposite found it all too easy to ensure that 27 dirty deals were done with different state education ministers in the dying days—that was code for delivering equitable outcomes to Australian school students. In reality, those states that did not sign up to the Gillard-Greens backed school funding arrangement actually saw students with the same needs in Indigenous schools, in country schools and in Catholic schools in different states treated very differently. Senator O'Neill 140651 That is not true. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm happy to provide the data to set that out for you, Senator O'Neill—through you, Mr President. The reality is, when it comes to needs based funding— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question. 14:27 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Can the minister guarantee that the government will not allow this $1.2 billion fund to be used to subsidise private school fees for wealthy parents? 14:27 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria What I can guarantee is that we're absolutely committed to ensuring equitable school funding for every single Australian student, irrespective of whether they live in Brunswick or Benalla, irrespective of whether they live in Fitzroy or Fitzroy Crossing. We are the side of parliament that actually puts money on the table to deliver what you could not deliver, and that is a needs based funding model that is consistent across the country. We need to support those parents who are seeking choice for their children. That has been one of the great strengths of our education system. But we can't run away from the fact—and the Greens do this every time; I think you should all just run for state parliament, because all the issues you bring here are actually a function of state parliament. If you want to see all of our funds go— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, what transparency will there be with this funding? Will the public be able to see if it has been spent on another swimming pool at The King's School or an orchestra pit at St Catherine's, while public school children and teachers sweat through yet another summer without air conditioning? 14:29 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Through you, Mr President, I will write a letter with you, Senator Faruqi, to every single state education minister, because that is absolutely unacceptable for any child—when it's hot in summer and you're trying to educate young children, schools need to be air conditioned. That is not the responsibility of the federal government. It is the responsibility of state education ministers. You stand up here and try and make some insinuation about the money that we're putting on the table—it is not to take away from the responsibilities of state education ministers. I would be appalled if the money that we are putting forward as a government to assist schools to transition to this new model to ensure that every single student in this country is treated the same for once were going towards excessive luxury items. I expect it to be going towards the education of Australian children. Prime Minister 40 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. The Auditor-General's 2008 report into Tourism Australia is especially critical of two contracts, for global creative development and media placement services, signed by Tourism Australia while Prime Minister Morrison was its managing director. Can the minister explain why, 10 years since the audit and 13 years since the contracts were signed, these two completed contracts do not appear on AusTender? 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I've already taken questions in relation to a 2008 Auditor-General's report on notice. That is, of course, a report that was delivered when the Rudd government was in government. So I will, of course, as I've indicated to the chamber, get answers to these sorts of questions, which of course relate to a time when Mr Morrison wasn't even in the parliament. He was a private citizen back then. He was a private citizen who was praised by the then chairman of Tourism Australia, Mr Fisher, for his outstanding performance. He was the driving force behind the 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign, which was highly successful in raising Australia's profile internationally and highly successful in attracting more tourists to Australia. Mr Morrison, of course, is known to the people of Australia as the person who dealt with Labor's chaos at our borders. He is the one who stopped the boats. He is the one who took over your chaos and dysfunction after six years of dysfunctional Labor government which led to a weakening economy, rising unemployment, a rapidly deteriorating budget position and chaos at our borders. Compare that with our track record of a stronger economy, more jobs, an improving budget position and, of course, a government that is successful in protecting the integrity of our borders. The Australian people know who delivers stronger growth, more jobs, better opportunity for Australian families and integrity to our borders. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a supplementary question? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Despite procurement rules requiring contracts to be reported within 42 days of them being entered, searches, including by AusTender staff, have reportedly failed to locate the contracts. What steps has the minister taken to locate the missing contracts and ensure that they are published as required? 14:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, this report was delivered during the period of the last Labor government and, indeed, Labor remained in government for a further five years after that report was delivered. I will, on notice, inquire as to what happened during the period of the past Labor government and provide a response to the chamber. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question? 14:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Given his history at Tourism Australia, is it any wonder that Prime Minister Morrison oversaw the gifting of $444 million of taxpayers' money to a small private foundation without due diligence or process? Why should Australians trust Prime Minister Morrison to run the government when former Prime Minister Howard couldn't even trust him to run Tourism Australia? 14:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia (—) (): Mr Morrison is part of a team that has turned the economic fortunes of Australia around. We inherited a weakening economy from Labor. We inherited rising unemployment from Labor. We inherited a rapidly deteriorating budget position from Labor. We inherited chaos at our borders from Labor. Mr Morrison, along with every Liberal and National member and senator in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, has worked hard to ensure that today the economy is stronger, employment growth is much stronger, our budget is in a stronger and improving position and our borders are more secure. Of course, Mr Morrison remains an outstanding advocate for our vibrant tourism sector and is highly recognised in the tourism sector as such. Labor, clearly, have run out of ideas. You're focusing on 10 years in the past because you don't have any ideas for the future. Your only ideas for the future are to whack Australian families and businesses with $200 billion in higher taxes, which would harm the economy and put jobs at risk. (Time expired) National Security 41 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to Minister Cash, representing the Minister for Home Affairs. Many Australians will be unaware that, since 2003, most refugees resettled in Australia come from Islamic countries in Africa and the Middle East. Refugees are overrepresented among those charged with or convicted of terrorist or terrorist related offences. A Somalian born refugee committed a terrorist act in the heart of the Melbourne CBD last week. His family are of interest to security services. President Trump has travel bans on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Surveys show most Australians want to ban immigration from known extremist countries. When will the government stop immigration from known extremist countries? 14:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her question. Senator Hanson will be well aware that Australia has a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We stand by that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators of my demand for silence during questions. Senator Hanson. 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, the PM has advocated that we will say who comes into our country. In June 2017 an Australian Bureau of Statistics' publication reported the Sudanese to have the highest rate of imprisonment of those born overseas. Will the government stop immigration from Sudan in light of continuing high crime rates over a number of years? 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Hanson. I refer to my previous answer. The Australian government has a non-discriminatory immigration policy. 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland In light of the fact that this government has a non-discriminatory policy, you are not listening to the Australian people and their concerns of what is happening on our streets. How many refugees are currently on our national security services watchlist? Does that number include refugees on state government police watchlists? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Hanson, you raise some quite specific questions that require specific detail. To the extent that I can, I will take them on notice and review them. Broadband 41 14:37 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on what action the Liberal-National government is taking to give Australians living in regional areas access to better internet services? 14:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank you, Senator Williams, for your question and recognise your advocacy to deliver greater communications for rural and regional Australia. This morning I was able to stand with NBN Co, who are developing a new product, the Sky Muster Plus, which is going to deliver not only faster broadband but also, importantly, unmetered data to rural and regional homes and businesses. It might sound very old age to those of us in the chamber, but they're going to be using this for web browsing, emails, software updates, internet banking, reading the news, staying in touch with family and friends and accessing vital services, such as telehealth, that won't end up contributing to their monthly cap, because right now they do. It means people are getting up at 2 am to put in their BAS statement on their cattle station. It is incredibly important. When kids come home, they can't do the appropriate education pieces. Importantly, during drought, they're unable to access essential telehealth services. Having unmetered data for those regional communities is incredibly important and it is being welcomed right around the board. Today, I was able to demonstrate the benefits of Sky Muster satellite, chatting with Kristy Sparrow, the founding member of Better Internet for Rural, Regional and Remote Australia. She and her husband run 5,000 head, in good times, on a 40,000 acre property up in Alpha, Senator O'Sullivan, in Queensland. She has been a tireless advocate for better internet services for the bush. It's been critical for her to be able to educate her two young children by distance education over the years. The Liberal-National government is investing $2 billion into the NBN Sky Muster satellite network, and this brings vital digital connectivity to our most isolated Australians. Thirty per cent of Australians don't live in capital cities, and we produce 70 per cent of our nation's exports. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a supplementary question. 14:40 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I ask the minister: what are the benefits of better communications in regional Australia? 14:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The benefits of increased digital connectivity for the regions are immense. At present, around 96 per cent of homes, farms and businesses in the regions either can order NBN or have network construction underway. Research has found that the network helped create $450 million in additional GDP in regional Australia last year, which means more jobs created locally. That figure is forecast to drive an additional $5.3 billion in regional areas by 2021, particularly across agriculture and tourism. There is a potential there to unlock $49.2 billion of private sector output over the next 10 years by accessing these digital technologies. Digital ag, we know, has the potential to increase by 25 per cent on 2014-15 levels through the adoption and use of technology. The Liberal-National government is investing in better broadband to help regional Australia grow and create local jobs across the regions. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a final supplementary question. 14:41 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I thank the minister for that good news. Now I have a difficult question for her. Is there any threat to the government's plan to improve communications throughout regional and rural Australia? 14:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator Williams. Yes, I think there might be. The threat to a better broadband for regional Australia is the threat of a future Labor government. When Labor was in government it was completely clueless about the need for data and mobile connections out in regional Australia. In contrast, when we came to government, we flipped the rollout of the NBN so that the regions were prioritised, because—guess what?—they didn't even have access to broadband. Now we've got more than 620,000 premises with access to fixed wireless and over half a million have an active service. If we'd stuck to Labor's plan for fixed wireless and satellite coverage, at least 200,000 farms and businesses—and they're actual people producing the wealth of this nation—would have no services at all. We have delivered the technology the regions need to access essential health and education services. Foodbank 42 14:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. I refer to the government's decision to cut more than $300,000 from Foodbank, an important community group that provides food to more than 710,000 Australians, including farmers struggling through the drought. The National Farmers' Federation said: We're baffled and disappointed by this mid-drought, pre-Christmas cut to Foodbank. Farmers are important contributors to Foodbank, and 40 per cent of people assisted are in the bush. Please rethink this. Does the minister agree with the National Farmers' Federation? 14:43 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your thoughtful question, and it's great to have a question related to agriculture and food production from the Labor Party, so keep them coming. I do usually agree with the NFF on a whole range of issues. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister advised he will be discussing the matter, around Foodbank and the $300 million, with the minister for social services, to see if there is a need to review that decision. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I remind senators on my right of the need for silence during questions. 14:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Notwithstanding his intention to discuss, this morning Prime Minister Morrison refused to commit to reinstate the more than $300,000 cut from Foodbank. Given that 40 per cent of people assisted by Foodbank are in the bush, what representations has the Deputy Prime Minister made to ensure funding is reinstated? 14:44 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I am happy to take on notice what representations the DPM has made with respect to this. When we look at those in need in the regions, it is our government that is backing their capacity to get a job and that is backing the industries that underpin economic growth in the regions—that's agriculture and mining. So we are doing everything we can to ensure that the millions of Australians who don't live in our capital cities are supported, not just in terms of meeting their daily needs through things like— Senator Cameron AI6 They've never had it so good in the bush! Senator McKENZIE 207825 Sorry, Senator Cameron? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you, Mr President. I got distracted by the drop-in interloper to regional Australia, Senator Cameron. I would like to offer Senator Cameron a tour through my home state of regional Victoria, particularly the northern area where I was last week, actually looking at the impact of ripping water— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I remind senators that, just as interjections are disorderly, one shouldn't also respond to them. Senator McAllister. 14:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This morning, the CEO of Foodbank, Brianna Casey, said: 'I meet the mums and dads who rely on Foodbank to feed their children, and I can't defend this decision. It wasn't my decision.' What does the minister have to say to the mums and dads who rely on Foodbank to feed their children, in defence of this decision? 14:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Mr President, thank you for that very good advice. I shall adhere to it in the future. As I stated, the Prime Minister has announced that he will be speaking with the Department of Social Services' minister and seeking whether there's a need to review this decision. Absolutely, we stand to support those families and communities who are doing it tough at this time. The PRESIDENT I0Q To clarify, Senator McKenzie, my previous ruling wasn't just in response to you; it was to some others responding to interjections. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 On a point of order: I'm not certain there's a mechanism for this, but, regarding the senator's statement that they've never had it so good in the bush, is there any prospect that we can have that placed on the record? Senator Cameron's interjection, that they've never had it so good in the bush—what an atrocious statement. Is there some way that he might— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, you're asking— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I let all senators make points of order. Unless they're egregiously out of order, I'm not going to interrupt. What is your point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 247871 I'm asking: is there a mechanism to have that placed on the record, in the Hansard? The PRESIDENT I0Q Interjections are not normally recorded unless they are taken by a person speaking. I did not hear that comment. I did not detect anything unparliamentary. I didn't hear it, so I can't say whether it happened. If it was as you are saying, there is nothing unparliamentary contained in that either. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 He's offended every Australian who lives outside of the metro. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O' Sullivan, please resume your seat. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I had ruled on the point of order. I am quite happy to have people respond to my exact words out of the microphone in a timely fashion. It would make the chamber a lot more quiet during question time. Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann HDA Just on a point of order: points of order are not to be taken by interjection. I would ask you to remind the Leader of the Opposition that, if she has a point of order, there's a proper way to handle it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on this or another point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I am happy to do so, Mr President. I was trying to resolve this matter without having the need to do so. On three occasions, the microphone was on with no point of order raised. That is not in accordance with the standing orders and he ought not have been given the call on three occasions. The PRESIDENT I0Q He wasn't given the call on three occasions. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, with respect, he was and he was microphoned, which is not consistent with the standing orders, but we leave it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I'll happily correct the record if I'm wrong, but he was being interrupted while he was raising a point of order and while I was speaking, while interjections were being made. No-one should be speaking while another is, least of all the person in the chair. I let senators raise a point of order. If they do something inappropriate, that will be called out. I cannot attest to an interjection I did not hear. Whether or not it happened, I made that ruling accordingly. I now call Senator McGrath. Queensland: Mining 44 14:48 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Could the minister please update the Senate on any recent developments relating to the mining sector in Queensland and the impact that those developments will have on this very important industry? 14:49 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Thank you to Senator McGrath for his question. He knows and those of us on this side know how important the resources sector is to the great state of Queensland and, indeed, how important it is to the nation. It is one of the most important sectors in Queensland because it employs 300,000 Queenslanders in both direct and indirect jobs. Brisbane is the biggest mining town in Queensland, with 128,000 people living in Brisbane owing their livelihoods, owing their jobs, to a strong resources sector. That is what we on this side of politics want to see and promote because it delivers so much wealth to the state. It delivers wealth to regional areas as well, such as where I'm from in Fitzroy in Central Queensland. The resources industry employs 10,000 people, paying $1.2 billion a year in wages. That works out to be $120,000 a year on average for each of those workers, and the mining industry pays the highest wages on average of any industry in this country by far. We want to support that industry, but unfortunately there are moves afoot by the Queensland government to impose a massive new cost on the Queensland resources sector just as some green shoots are emerging in that sector. The Queensland government is considering strengthening rehabilitation laws in that state. I should say up-front that the industry supports stronger laws for rehabilitation. Our government supports state governments properly regulating rehabilitation laws. The problem is that secret amendments, amendments that have not been put through public scrutiny, are being negotiated and pushed by Jackie Trad against the resources sector. It is clear that the agenda here is to hurt the mining sector and to hurt mining jobs, not to protect the environment. That is what is going on. We learned today that a report by Ernst & Young shows that 16 mines are at high risk and 11 mine owners could be insolvent if these laws go through. But we're hearing nothing from the Labor Party, who are meant to represent workers. We are hearing absolutely nothing defending these jobs in Central Queensland. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a supplementary question. 14:51 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland What are people in Queensland saying about these proposed laws? 14:51 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I welcome the fact that on this side we're here defending the interests of workers in this country. We are here defending their jobs. We're being joined by the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU share our views on this bill. The CFMMEU are joining with the LNP to defend coalmining jobs. We're hearing nothing at all from Labor members of parliament or candidates for federal parliament to defend these jobs and defend workers. It is now the LNP who are on the side of the worker these days. The LNP have the worker's back, while the Labor Party, time and time again, sell their soul to the Greens to get behind this kind of legislation which is all aimed at destroying jobs in Queensland and is not protecting the environment. That is exactly what this is about. But we will work with whomever wants to join us to defend jobs, to defend workers' interests and to make sure we have a thriving economy in Queensland. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question. 14:52 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Is there anything that can be done to prevent this disastrous policy from going forward? 14:52 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland What could be done is we could have members of the so-called Labor Party stand up for labourers and stand up for workers in this country for a change. Just for a change, that would be a good thing. We here are on the side of those who do want to work in this country, of those who do want to get a job to provide for their families. We are on the side of those industries that create wealth, that create jobs, that pay the taxes and that support public servants of this nation, and our resources sector does that in spades. But if you have a Labor Party that is not willing to say that, not willing to speak about that, not willing to defend these jobs in public, it is weakening our position in this country. It is weakening support for our resources sector. What we need now is to see these job-destroying secret amendments killed off and to get back to the land of common sense about strengthening mining laws in this country while also protecting jobs. Immigration Detention 45 14:53 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Payne. Minister, I refer to this email from the Nauru consulate in Brisbane which says in relation to my application for a visa to visit Nauru: 'The senator's request to visit Nauru does not have the support of the Australian DFAT office; therefore, the Nauru government is unable to support the senator's visa request at this time.' Minister, why did your department not support my visa application for Nauru? 14:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I understand the circumstances, that is not a correct interpretation of the circumstances and the government did not express that view. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a supplementary question. 14:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I'd remind the minister that this is in black and white—an email from the Nauruan consulate in Brisbane. Minister, did your department raise with you at any stage the issue of my visa application? If so, what was your response and did you discuss this issue with any other minister? 14:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales No. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a final supplementary question. 14:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, are you accusing the Nauruan government of lying in this email to me? This email is to the people who sought my visa, which was provided to me by those people. It made it very clear that the reason they did not support my visa request was because—and I quote from the email, which I will seek to table later today—'the Senator's request to visit Nauru does not have the support of the Australian DFAT office'. 14:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Perhaps Senator McKim lives in a world of lies and deceptions, but that is not the case on this side of the parliament. Occasionally there is material which Senator McKim has put on the record which is not correct, which is the circumstance here. As you know, Senator, decisions on visa entry to Nauru are made by the government of Nauru. Neither the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade nor the Australian High Commission in Nauru made any recommendation to the government of Nauru in relation to Senator McKim's visa application. The International Parliamentary Relations Office of this parliament is responsible for facilitating visa applications for Australian parliamentarians through standard visa channels. The Australian High Commission in Nauru only sponsors visa applications of Australian officials, parliamentarians and ministers when they are travelling on official Australian government visits. There is no indication whatsoever that anybody is lying in this context, Senator McKim; I am simply setting out the facts. Member for Dunkley 45 14:56 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that the member for Dunkley, Mr Chris Crewther, personally owns shares in Gretals Australia Pty Ltd and has publicly declared this on the register of interests? Can the minister confirm that Gretals Australia Pty Ltd had fewer than 25 shareholders when the member for Dunkley purchased those shares? 14:57 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia My advice is that the member for Dunkley is validly elected to sit in the House of Representatives. If the Labor Party has a different view, they know what action they can take. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a supplementary question. 14:57 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Is the minister aware of section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution, which states that a person is disqualified from sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives if that person 'has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons'? (Time expired) 14:58 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a final supplementary question. 14:58 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Minister, if the member for Dunkley has declared on the public interest register that he is in ownership of the shares of a company with fewer than 25 shareholders, is it the case that the government is now in a situation where the member is in breach of section 44, and can you confirm which Commonwealth government department has provided money to Gretals Australia in regard to any grants? 14:58 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We now have bush lawyer Senator Carr seeking to adjudicate on the eligibility of individual members and senators. If he has such a view, there are processes available to the Labor Party. In relation to the specific question about grants, I will take that on notice and provide any information that may be relevant. Higher Education 46 14:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator McKenzie. Could the minister update the Senate on what the Liberal-National government is doing to help young people from rural and regional Australia get into university? 14:59 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Brockman, for your advocacy for students from rural and regional Australia. The coalition is committed to providing all Australians with a chance of a university education, no matter where they live. Australians living in regional and remote communities will have greater access to higher education because of the Liberal-Nationals government's announcement today of an additional $134.8 million. Today's announcement will see $34 million for an extra 1,955 scholarships for regional and remote students, more than doubling the 1,200 scholarships currently available; $92.5 million to support more students at five regionally focused universities; and $7.5 million to support 16 regional study hubs in 22 locations, in addition to the $16.7 million that the government has already committed, as well as the development of a national regional, rural and remote higher education strategy to drive increased participation in postsecondary-level education as part of our response to the recommendations from the Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education. Our government's total additional new funding for regional higher education is now $400 million over the next five years. It's an important announcement for universities that are outside our capital cities and, importantly, for young people who want to come and study in the regions. As chair of the Regional Universities Network, Professor Greg Hill, said: A one-size-fits all policy for higher education does not meet the needs of regional Australia or the nation. Place-based initiatives, such as those announced, are needed to make a difference. He also said: RUN congratulates the Government on this initiative that demonstrates that it is listening to the voice of regional Australia in the national interest. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a supplementary question. 15:01 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister provide any further update on scholarships that the government is providing to these young Australians? Senator Kim Carr interjecting— 15:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Think of the regions, Kim; don't just focus on Melbourne and Monash. Mr President, today the coalition committed to supporting rural and regional students by more than doubling the number of scholarships through the Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships program. Today's announcement provided over $34 million to increase the number of scholarships from 1,200 to 3,195. These scholarships will support students from regional and rural communities who want to study courses such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The scholarships provide up to $18,000 to assist students from the regions with the costs of studying at a university or vocational educational training institution. The scholarships can also include internships to help students develop their professional experience and ensure that they're job ready. New guidelines will also make it easier for drought affected students to apply, including families receiving farm household allowance. Applications are currently open, and I would encourage every single rural and regional student to get on board. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question. 15:02 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you, Minister; that's great news for rural and regional Australia. Is the minister aware of any other measures that the government has implemented to support rural and regional students at university? 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Yes, I am, and I would like to say thank you to all the Liberal and Nationals MPs and senators who've fought very, very hard for these initiatives over the past five years. The announcement today brings the total support for rural and regional students that is provided by this government to over $400 million, including $152 million for a regional student access to education package, which includes $45 million for isolated children's education. This support includes over $96 million in response to the 11 recommendations of Professor Halsey's Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education. That response saw $28 million to fund around 500 additional commencing sub-bachelor degrees and to enable Commonwealth support of places in 2019, growing to 688 by 2020, and nearly $54 million to ease financial pressures of families in regional communities by increasing the parental income cut-off. Students from regional and rural Australia can rely on our government. (Time expired) Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Foodbank 47 15:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria In one of my answers to Senator McAllister's question, I think I said $300 million. It was $300,000. I'd like to correct the record. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Prime Minister 47 15:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senators Collins and Farrell today relating to the Prime Minister (Mr Morrison). In the late noughties, Tourism Australia's 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign was in full flight. It may not have brought many new tourists to our country, but it did bring Lara Bingle, now Worthington, onto screens and social pages across Australia. But there was another career that rose from the spectacular marketing failure, and that was the career of the then managing director of Tourism Australia, Mr Scott Morrison. It would be a few years, of course, before Mr Morrison would rise to be the PM. He would have to win preselection first. For those who have forgotten, in 2007, it was actually Michael Towke who was preselected for the safe Liberal seat of Cook. That preselection contest attracted a large array of candidates, including Paul Fletcher and Mr Scott Morrison. Mr Towke easily won the preselection. He beat Mr Morrison 82 votes to eight. But, in the weeks that followed the preselection, a number of news articles questioned the legitimacy of this preselection, which ultimately saw him disendorsed. This led to Mr Morrison being preselected, and Mr Towke commenced defamation proceedings and obtained a substantial settlement. But, by that time, of course, from a political perspective, the damage was done. Mr Morrison went on to be a minister and a shadow minister before emerging from the chaos of this year as Prime Minister. An expose in this weekend's Saturday Paper has brought the conduct of Mr Morrison at Tourism Australia back into question. Why, after a decade, should Australians care? Because the events, as detailed in that expose and in the contemporaneous Auditor-General's report, raise serious questions about competence, about governance and about probity. They are raised in relation to a man that no single Australian knew could be the Prime Minister when they voted in the election in 2016. Prime Minister Morrison has steadfastly refused to answer the question of why he is the leader instead of former Prime Minister Turnbull. But, in the absence of any explanation, voters are entitled to turn to his past to try and understand who he really is and what he brings to the job. There are serious questions of competence raised by the events, because, all the indications in the material that is available to us are that Mr Morrison struggled to perform. In answering these questions, Senator Cormann tried to point to performance as a reason for Mr Morrison's ascendancy. But, if we look back, Michelle Grattan reported at the time: 'Sources close to Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy. We wish there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous.' The Australian, likewise, reported the relevant minister as saying: 'We've moved on it. It was without question the right decision by the board.' That's what Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure. In The Australian, they went on to report, 'She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be more of a team player, capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government.' Is this the man that the Liberals want as Prime Minister—someone who couldn't work with state bodies, industry and government? There are also serious questions about governance and probity. The Auditor-General's report suggests there were serial irregularities in the way that contracts were awarded by Tourism Australia. For instance, the Auditor-General found that while Prime Minister Morrison was its managing director, Tourism Australia requested that tenderers commence work on contracts worth $184 million before contracts were even executed and that Tourism Australia's risk mitigation was ineffective. These questions around competence, probity and governance are serious questions and they require answers from the government. 15:10 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Normally, it's a pleasure to join the take note debate after question time, but more and more I become disillusioned when we get to this part of the day and focus on things that I don't think the Australian people are too terribly interested in. Question time came after two weeks out of this place—two weeks where all of us should have been out and talking to the people who we represent in this place; the people who elect us. They are people who have concerns and who are struggling to pay their power bills. They are people who want to make sure that their kids have jobs in the communities they live in. I'm sure they would have been communicating to Labor senators who asked questions in this question time about the issues which matter to them. I'm not sure how many Australians sat there and said: 'Do you know what, Senator X, Senator Y and Senator Z? Why don't you go down to Canberra and ask some questions about the Prime Minister from some report by the ANAO from 10 years ago? Go down there and see what you can find out about it. Why don't you go and play the man, not the ball?' Those opposite adopt the usual tactic that they seem to employ more and more as they run out of ideas and as they run out of steam in the lead-up to the next federal election: 'Why don't you go and besmirch someone's character by dredging things up?' Clearly, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate said in answer to questions on this matter, the Labor dirt unit was working overtime for the last two weeks—not coming up with policy ideas and not thinking about the best ways to combat the next election but just digging deeper and deeper, searching for any skerrick of information that might yield a bit of what they believe is dirt. That is rather than focusing on the issues that actually matter to the Australian people—Australian mums and dads and Australian families. As was stated, this ANAO report is a decade old. And, as was stated, it's one that was undertaken when we had a Labor government in this place—the Rudd government. But I think the answers given by Senator Cormann in response to those questions around this ridiculous character besmirching that has gone on by Labor today points to a very strong contrast between the Australian Labor Party and the plan they have—or don't, more to the point, given the nature of the questions today—and the record we can point to; the priorities for us. The questions that coalition senators asked of ministers today were around jobs, economic activity and how to look after regional Australians when it comes to matters like telecommunications and regional health. Those things are important. What the Labor senators asked about, and what we're doing the take note about today, is not an issue that Australians are concerned about. This is exactly why they get tired of us here in Canberra, because it is all insider, Canberra-bubble material. It isn't relevant to the kitchen table discussions, as I'm sure my good friend and colleague Senator Watt would agree. But one thing which has been omitted from all of the discussion around the reports at the time was the comments that were made by the then chair of the board of Tourism Australia, Mr Fischer. He heaped praise on the Prime Minister when he was leaving that role. He said that he did a great job. It's a tough job and there was a time of transformation. The industry backed him in as well, saying that he did a fantastic job in terms of how the board should be structured. Those things have been omitted from the questions today. Rather than focus on the facts of the matter, they've hung things out there—suggestions and loaded language in these questions—to try to cast the worst light possible on the Prime Minister. They've been trying to sling mud, which is, again, something that Australians don't want to see here. People expect more of us; they want us to come in here and have a proper debate about issues that matter, like reducing hospital waiting lists—and we do have the MPI a little later on today, and I'm looking forward to contributing to that. Of course, there was the matter of food relief, which Senator McAllister asked about. I was surprised that she moved the motion to take note of answers that didn't relate to that matter but on issues, as I said before, which are not important. As has been stated in the answers provided, this group of people, the Australian Labor Party, is looking backward. It is looking 10 years into the past to dig up as much dirt as possible. It is not looking to the future. It doesn't have the answers and it certainly doesn't have the plan. We need to expect more from those who aspire to be in government than what they're delivering. (Time expired) 15:15 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I rise to take note of the answers given, or rather not given, by Senator Cormann to questions by senators on this side asked in relation to the fact the current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was unceremoniously sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia in 2006. Senator Cormann cannot claim he had no notice of these questions. He must have known, following the extensive reporting of this matter over the weekend, that there would be questions on this matter in the Senate today, yet he deliberately chose not to inform himself of the facts. This immediately raises the question: what is Senator Cormann afraid of? Why does he feel the need to dodge and wibble-wobble when he is asked about this matter? We know Senator Cormann's home branch of the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a branch that I'm sure is close to your heart, Madam Deputy President, since you can observe its travails up close and personal on our great western coast. What's come to light over the weekend is that the Liberal Party has been asking children to sign extraordinary talent release forms that seek to ban people from criticising or satirising the party in public or in private for five years. These North Korean style forms also seek to ban signatories from associating with other political parties. The Western Australian Liberal Party would make Kim Jong Un proud. The question for today— and perhaps this will help Senator Cormann—seems to be: where the bloody hell are you? If you look at Sean Kelly's piece in The Monthly—he does a more metaphorical take on this—you will see the answer is, 'Looking for Scott Morrison.' And, I have to tell you, he is a pretty difficult man to find. Is he on the bus—the SloMo express? No, he is on a VIP. Is he making a video for Twitter? No, he is sculling a beer. All the while, he is stealing food from the poor, cutting funding for Foodbank. Not since 'Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher' have we seen this level of villainy—from 'Scott no heart, Scott no clue and Scott no decency'. Margaret Thatcher, two decades later, still regrets snatching milk from schoolchildren. The Prime Minister is the moral equivalent of the person taking coins from the blanket of the homeless person in the city streets. How does he sleep at night? Let's go back to his wonderful time as the CEO of Tourism Australia. There seem to have been some personality difficulties between Mr Morrison and the Minister for Tourism, rather surprising perhaps given they were both from the Liberal Party, but Mr Morrison's resistance to the plan that Ms Bailey planned to put in place is a key reason behind his messy exit. But there is more. Morrison was 'not a team player'. They're not my words; they're actually Ms Bailey's words. Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure, 'We've moved on. It was without question the right decision by the board.' She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be 'more of a team player' capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government. Of course, we have seen in recent months that Mr Morrison, when he gave that fatal hug of death to the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, still isn't much of a team player. In The Australian on 7 September 2006, there was an article around the unanimous board decision to dismiss Mr Morrison. Referring to Ms Bailey, it said: She said she did not dismiss Mr Morrison—it had been the unanimous decision of the board, which felt he had to go because it had lost confidence in him and could not work with him. Ms Bailey told the committee the issue with Mr Morrison was not one of personality but— wait for it— performance. The Sydney Morning Herald on 16 August 2006 said: Ms Bailey's office declined to comment last night but the strengthening of Tourism Australia is expected to be welcomed by the travel industry after the dramatic departure of its managing director, Scott Morrison, following a unanimous decision by the board to remove him … Sources close to the Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. "There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy and we wished there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous." There is a line between someone who acts like that and the way we have seen the Prime Minister behave recently. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I think this is grubby politics. I really do. Here we are, Senator Kitching quoting from The Australian newspaper in 2006—12 years ago. Imagine if I picked out a quote from the former Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke that he was on the grog one night as a young fella. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WILLIAMS I0V Have you finished? Senator Wong interjecting— Senator WILLIAMS I0V What did I do to Gillard? I didn't do anything, quoting you, Senator Wong. What did your side do to Prime Minister Gillard? That's the question you should be asking, Senator Wong. You're the ones that sacked her. As I said, we are going back to 2006 newspaper quotes. I'm not going to pick up a paper and look for a quote on Bob Hawke when he was on the grog some time as a university student. Good luck to him. I probably did the same myself except I didn't spend a long time at university. This is grubby politics. The now Prime Minister was a private citizen working before he joined politics. We have even seen attacks on his preselection. I could talk about a lot of preselections in here of those opposite, where the knives come out, the deals are done, and the factions get together and come to some sort of arrangement. We know all about them. We could go back to 2013 and the Senate positions on the paper, couldn't we, Senator Wong? Things like that. This is just grubby politics. I'm not going to go back into the past. It's not for me to judge the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, or former leaders in this country. Question time is just a farce of throwing hand grenades. Probably the quote of question time today was Senator Cameron when he said, 'Those in the bush have never had it so good.' I find that an amazing interjection, highlighted by Senator O'Sullivan. Just yesterday I came in from Parkes in the Central West. I was talking to my friends Barry and Cheryl Green and Bull Green and his wife Therese. They're carting water, filling the dams up on their properties for sheep water because they don't have underground water in that region. And Senator Cameron says during question time, 'The bush has never had it so good.' That is an amazing statement—so out of touch. It just goes to prove that those opposite spend little time in the bush, seeing the drought, the effect on the people, the animals, the mental effect on humans. Sadly some have taken their own lives due to the stress of this drought. We find in question time comments that the bush has never seen it so good. It's simply amazing. We were talking about the past of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and how those opposite are so squeaky clean with the past. There are things like the laws on superannuation. We can't get changes to them. We have Senator McAllister saying what happened in the preselection of Mr Morrison. Isn't that the business of the Liberal Party, just like the Labor Party does preselection? It's their business how they work their factions and agreements out and so on. As far as Mr Morrison goes and his job at Tourism Australia, I was happy to speak with the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, a few weeks ago at Sydney Airport. He is a good man. He is having a few battles of his own personally. I wish him well with those struggles he's having now with some health issues. He has been a great leader of the National Party and a great Deputy Prime Minister. He is a very decent and honest man. He backed Scott Morrison in that position as managing director, and so did the industry. Here we are today playing politics again in question time and taking note, really to achieve nothing but to try and smear the Prime Minister, who is out there amongst the people working hard, communicating with them. Then we get the thing about the food grants and support; there has been no cut in that. There's an extra $4.5 million, but that wasn't discussed, of course—just one political point taken about that. Really, what is question time about? What is taking note about? It's about political points and simply wasting time. 15:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I wanted to talk about why this issue is important. Unlike Senator Williams over there, I can't just dismiss this because it was a period of time ago. This is an important and substantial story. This is the last substantial job that the current Prime Minister did before he entered parliament, so it's absolutely legitimate that he is held accountable for the role that he played in that. The other aspect of this is that his appointment to that job was highly political. The last job he did before he was appointed as the Managing Director of Tourism Australia was State Director of the New South Wales Liberal Party. He had that role when they won re-election in 2004, and former Prime Minister Howard is on the record saying how grateful he was for the role that the current Prime Minister played during that 2004 campaign. How was he appointed to be the Managing Director of Tourism Australia? The key recruitment agency that conducted the search was Korn Ferry. On this side of the chamber, we know that when the conservatives, when the LNP, want to get their preferred outcome in terms of recruitment, that's who they go to. We saw that evidence during Senate estimates when we were talking about the recent troubles at the ABC. And who have the government appointed to head the recruitment for the new board positions? None other than Korn Ferry. So we know that they have form. When they want their preferred outcome, this is who they go to. These issues are substantial, they are important, and it is important that the current Prime Minister answer the questions that have been raised as part of the reporting. These aren't allegations by the Labor Party. This is as a result of a National Audit Office report. They are substantial allegations and they were reached independently of us as the opposition and, indeed, independently of the Public Service. They also go to the judgement of the Prime Minister, his record before he got into parliament and his capacity. It also goes to transparency, because taxpayer funds were involved in that organisation that he was responsible for. What payout did he receive that had confidentiality agreements around it? This is public money at the end of the day we're talking about. So there are a number of aspects of this that go to his record now and also his record previously. How can we not use this to question his judgement as a result? In the short time he has been Prime Minister we have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to question his judgement. We saw that in the week before the Wentworth by-election when there was a series of rolling blunders by this Prime Minister, including what was nothing short of a diplomatic incident with regard to the relationship with Indonesia. In the last week of the by-election campaign, the Prime Minister floated the idea of moving the embassy in Israel, which put at risk the signing of a free trade agreement with our important neighbours in Indonesia. It is, therefore, easy for us to conclude that we need to look at his decision-making, and to look at, when the current Prime Minister has been in positions of authority, how he has used that. When you look at his role at Tourism Australia, it was a very short-lived affair. It was a unanimous board decision—this is the same board that appointed him to that role 18 months earlier—to remove him, and this included a former National Party deputy leader as part of that, and there was a really obvious falling-out relationship with the minister at the time. The length of time he was in that role also leads us to conclude that there were judgement issues at play. I think when you look at the LNP, they obviously—and we saw this in question time today—have problems detailing and explaining dismissals. We saw that with the former Prime Minister. They still can't tell us why Prime Minister Turnbull was dismissed, and it seems like we can't find out why the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was dismissed from Tourism Australia. So there are some fundamental issues that need to be highlighted within the public domain. In question time today, the Senate leader, Senator Cormann, didn't take that opportunity to explain these decisions. So we will absolutely continue to highlight why it is so important for us to question the government and question the Prime Minister on this role at Tourism Australia and get to the bottom of why these decisions were made. We know he went from being the New South Wales state Liberal director straight to the position of managing director of Tourism Australia and then 18 months later he was out of that role. The Australian people deserve answers and the ANAO report is a good place for us to start. (Time expired) Question agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 51 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:30 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator CAMERON AI6 Today in question time Senator O' Sullivan rose on a point of order. I think Senator O'Sullivan either misunderstood what I was saying or he went on to misrepresent what I said. Leading up to my interjection, Senator McKenzie was speaking about these great things the government were doing in relation to rural and regional Australia. She indicated that the government were backing people's capacity to get a job; they were backing the industries that underpin the economic growth in the regions, and that was through agriculture and mining; and they were doing everything they could to ensure that the millions of Australians who don't live in our capital cities are supported. I interjected by saying, 'So they have never had it so good?' I did that being ironic. I did that because I couldn't believe that Senator McKenzie was saying that these things were so good in the bush. Senator O'Sullivan went on to say that I had never been in the bush. I had, over the last two weeks, been in Albury-Wodonga and in Bega, and in both those areas constituents had indicated to me that there were real concerns about the capacity of the National Party and the Liberal Party to deliver services in the bush. These concerns went to housing, homelessness, education and a whole range of issues, such as decent rates of pay for people in the bush. I would never try to say anything about how tough it is for farmers in the bush during this drought. I would never say anything about that, not even in an ironic way. This is a massive problem for regional and rural Australia, and I just wanted to clarify that my concern was with the National Party pushing these positions that they say they are delivering for the bush when all of my experience, even in the last couple of weeks, was totally in contrast to what Senator McKenzie was saying. I hope that we get over this drought and I wish farmers and rural and regional communities well in dealing with it. Labor, and I personally, will obviously do everything we can to support those in rural and regional Australia. I just think this was a misunderstanding by Senator O'Sullivan and then he went on to misrepresent me. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Schools 52 15:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to the Choice and Affordability Fund for school funding. We have seen from Minister McKenzie's performance in question time today and from the stonewalling at budget estimates that the so-called 'choice and affordability fund' is exactly what we thought it would be when it was first announced. This is a bipartisan political fix for private schools that comes at the direct expense of public schools, public school students and teachers, which are grossly underfunded and most in need. This whole program is a farce. There are no rules and no criteria, and the department seems to have no idea how the enormous amount of $1.2 billion for the private school slush fund was arrived at. There are no complex mathematical formulas behind this number. There's only one formula the Liberal-National government is interested in, and that's how much money to throw at the private school sector to keep it quiet. Billions going to Catholic and independent schools is billions not going to public schools, and it is public school teachers and students who will continue to be neglected. Ninety-three per cent of teachers dip into their own pocket to buy stationery and classroom equipment, and nearly half buy library resources and textbooks. It means public school students continue to sweat it out in demountable classrooms with no air conditioning, while private schools build orchestra pits and their third and fourth swimming pools. This government and the private schools have some things in common, and one of those things is that they both fear transparency. Dr Adrian Piccoli, former New South Wales education minister and the director of the Gonski Institute for Education at the University of New South Wales, has made very clear what happens when you allow systems like the Catholic education system to determine where to put public money, instead of the government. He pointed out that the Catholic sector often allocate more money to their wealthy schools than their schools in disadvantaged areas. He gives the example of schools in regional Queanbeyan receiving $2,000 less per student than Catholic students on the wealthy North Shore. St Joseph's in Condobolin, whose student population is 30 per cent Indigenous, gets $4,000 less per student than St Michael's in Sydney's wealthy inner west. This madness has to stop. These special deals have to stop. The Greens are the only party that will stand up for public schools and against special deals for private schools. Both the Labor and Liberal parties continue to support billions going to already overfunded private schools. Parents of public school children have the right to be angry that the government managed to find $4.6 billion behind the couch and there is not a dollar—not even a single cent extra—for public schools. This is a national disgrace. It's time for the government to admit that this is just hush money for private schools and to put this money into the public system, where it's clearly most needed. Question agreed to. National Security 52 15:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson today relating to immigration and national security. The answer that was given by Minister Cash with regard to my question about refugees coming from African and Middle Eastern countries who have been convicted of terrorist and terrorist-related offences was the weakest and most pathetic answer that the Australian people could have been given. Last week we saw another terrorist attack on the streets of Melbourne, as we saw with Man Monis, a former refugee. All I asked was: would the government consider not allowing people from the countries where these terrorists are coming from into Australia? That's what the Australian people want. People want security. I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric on this floor of parliament from both major political parties. They say they're worried about national security in Australia, yet they do nothing about it. They give the answer that they have a non-discriminatory immigration policy. The fact is that the Sudanese have the highest crime rate and highest representation in our prisons, but we have non-discriminatory entry into Australia. Well, it's not good enough as far as the Australian people are concerned. They're in fear—fear to walk our streets, fear to go on public transport, fear for their loved ones. And I think it's an absolute disgrace that this parliament is not prepared to stand up and say it how it is. It was a disgraceful answer from Minister Cash with regard to this question of mine, and people deserve better. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 53 CONDOLENCES Mack, Mr Edward Carrington (Ted) 53 15:39 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 6 November 2018, of Edward Carrington (Ted) Mack, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of North Sydney, New South Wales, from 1990 to 1996. NOTICES 53 NOTICES Presentation 53 BUSINESS 59 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 59 15:40 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 12 November to 15 November 2018: Senator Birmingham, on account of parliamentary business; Senator Macdonald, on account of parliamentary business; Senator Martin, for personal reasons; and Senator Paterson, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Moore from today, 12 November, to Thursday, 15 November on account of parliamentary business; for Senator Marshall, for today, 12 November, and tomorrow, 13 November, for personal reasons; and Senator Bilyk for today, 12 November, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 59 NOTICES Postponement 59 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 59 Reporting Date 59 BUSINESS 59 BUSINESS Rearrangement 59 15:42 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That— (a) on Monday, 12 November 2018, the business of the Senate notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse—Participation) Payments) Determination 2018 and the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Job Search Efforts) Determination 2018, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, for that day be called on for debate together no later than 6.10 pm; and (b) if consideration of the motions listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 6.25 pm, the questions on the unresolved motions shall then be put. 15:42 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I seek leave to move an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 2. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I move: Omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute: (a) on Monday, 12 November 2018, the business of the Senate notices of motion standing in the name of Senator Siewert for that day proposing the disallowance of: (i) the Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018, (ii) the Social Security (Administration) (Job Search Efforts) Determination 2018, and (iii) the Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018 be called on for debate together no later than 6.10 pm; and (b) if consideration of the motions listed in paragraph (a) is not concluded at 8.00 pm, the questions on the unresolved motions shall then be put separately. I have circulated this amendment in the chamber. It relates to the timing of the end of the debate, seeking to move it from 6.25 to 8 pm. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion as moved by the minister and amended by Senator Siewert be agreed to. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 60 MOTIONS Political donations 60 15:44 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) disclosure of donations made to political parties is only made public by the Australian Electoral Commission once a year, on 1 February, for the preceding financial year, (ii) there is up to an 18 month delay between when a donation is made and when it is publicly disclosed, and at minimum a 7 month delay, (iii) since 2012, the major parties have received approximately $100 million in donations from corporate entities, (iv) the voters in the electorates of Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth will have to wait until 1 February 2020, some 18 months after the by-election date, before they know who funded those campaigns, (v) the voters in the electorate of Wentworth will have to wait almost 16 months before they know who funded political parties' by-election campaigns, and (vi) under current legislation for federal elections, voters go to the ballot box without any information about how their local candidates and political parties have funded their campaigns – the identity of donors or amounts donated; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to require all donations of $1000 and above to be disclosed in close to real-time on an easy-to-search public website, to ensure voters have access to information about who is bank-rolling political campaigns before they vote. 15:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The opposition will be supporting this motion. It has been Labor's long-held policy that the federal disclosure threshold be lowered. It was a Labor government that originally lowered the disclosure threshold to allow Australians to see who was funding election campaigns. It was the coalition who reversed it, reducing transparency and seeing the threshold blow out to its current figure of $13,800. Labor believes in transparency throughout our political system and is the only party who can form government and work with the Australian Electoral Commission to deliver it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion 1169 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Bernardi, C Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 24 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

My Health Record 61 15:51 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I, and also on behalf of Senator Watt, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) members of the community have expressed significant concerns about the inadequate privacy and security provisions currently present in the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 (the bill), (ii) senators will not have an opportunity to debate the bill until the week beginning 12 November 2018, (iii) the opt-out period for the My Health Record is currently scheduled to end in the same week, on 15 November 2018, and (iv) the Federal Government has extended the opt-out period once before, supposedly to allow passage of the bill; (b) expresses disappointment that the Federal Government has chosen to not follow through on their commitment to the Australian people to strengthen the legislation which governs the My Health Record, meaning that any choices that the Australian people make about opting out will not be sufficiently informed; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to extend or suspend the opt-out period until the legislation and any amendments are passed, outstanding privacy and security concerns are addressed, and public confidence in this important reform is restored. 15:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 On 7 November Minister Hunt announced that the government will introduce further legislative amendments to ensure the safety and privacy of health information in the My Health Record system, including provisions to protect people against domestic violence and tougher penalties for those who misuse the system. These will be voted upon in the Senate this week. Those who wish to delete their records after the 15 November opt-out date can do so at any time throughout their lives and their record will be deleted forever. The legislation to enable My Health Record to become an opt-out system passed the parliament unanimously in 2015. 15:53 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DI NATALE 53369 The Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into the My Health Record because we listened to the concerns not just of the medical community, the IT community and privacy advocates but of the Australian community. They made it very clear that they hold huge concerns about the rollout of the My Health Record. Now is the appropriate time to press pause and to extend the opt-out period for a further 12 months. If we proceed as is planned, every single Australian will have a record created for them on the 15th of this month, in a few days time. We're going to press ahead with that when significant changes are yet to be made to the legislation that has already been identified as creating enormous concerns around people's privacy. The government flagged that they are going to introduce amendments. Those amendments have not yet passed and yet every Australian will have a record created for them in several days time. 15:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATT 245759 I just want to put on the record that this also comes out of a Labor initiated inquiry and this is a co-sponsored motion by the Labor Party. Labor have, from the very beginning, indicated our concern that the opt-out period is not long enough to deal with the many concerns that members of the public have. We put forward amendments in our inquiry report, which the government has fortunately and finally listened to, but it is still our view that the opt-out period needs to be extended and that's why we are supporting this motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1167 standing in the names of Senators Di Natale and Watt be agreed to.

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

35 AYES Anning, F Bernardi, C Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 22 NOES Abetz, E Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Day of the Unborn Child 62 15:58 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that: (i) the internationally-recognised Day of the Unborn Child is observed on 25 March as 'a positive option in favour of life and the spread of a culture for life to guarantee respect for human dignity in every situation', (ii) religious observers attending Day of the Unborn Child services are continuously disrupted and harassed at annual protest rallies organised by pro-abortion groups, such as the University of Sydney Women's Collective, the University of New South Wales Women's Collective and Labour for Choice, (iii) these protest rallies feature speakers who insult church-goers and accuse the church of supporting violence against women, and (iv) then Bishop of Broken Bay, Peter Comensoli, has advocated for exclusion zones around religious activities, stating "if they're (activists) determined to have a safety zone, why not a safety zone around any activities that could be personally intimidating for those involved"; and (b) calls on all senators to: (i) protect religious freedom in Australia, (ii) note the hypocrisy of pro-abortion activists complaining about pro-life group activities near abortion clinics, while, at the same time, carrying out their own protest rallies against religious observances, and (iii) support calls for pro-abortion activists to be banned from disrupting Day of the Unborn Child services across the nation. 15:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 As this motion involves a matter of conscience, in line with longstanding practice government senators are free to vote in accordance with their own conscience on matters relating to this motion. 15:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 Senator O'Sullivan needs to get his hands and his rosaries off my ovaries and those of the 10,000 Queensland women who have an abortion every year, 10,000 women who have the right to make a decision about their own bodies without the opinion of Senator O'Sullivan getting in their way. Senator O'Sullivan has never shared and will never share the experience of any of those women. He will never be faced with running a gauntlet of people calling him a murderer because he's made a decision about his own body. Do not stand there in judgement of women when you will never share their experiences and never understand their choices. A woman's body is her own and no man or anyone else in this building or anywhere else has any right to dictate what she does with it. You should be ashamed of yourself, seeking respect for a group of people trying to further oppress women and control their bodies. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Abetz on a point of order? Senator Abetz N26 Reference to a person's religious beliefs in speeches in this chamber have been, quite rightly, called out as being inappropriate. I think that the reference to Senator O'Sullivan's religion in relation to the rosary is such a matter that should be, and deserves and needs to be, withdrawn. Senator WATERS 192970 On the point of order: if that's the case then the whole motion shouldn't be proceeded with. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 On the point of order, I do remind senators that it is not appropriate to refer to the religious beliefs of any senator in this place. I would ask you to withdraw the comments, Senator Waters, without repeating them. Senator WATERS 192970 Deputy President, is Senator O'Sullivan going to withdraw his motion? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, I am applying the standing orders. I've simply asked you to withdraw the comments you made in relation to religion. I ask that you do that. Senator WATERS 192970 I withdraw only the remark to Senator O'Sullivan's rosary. I would like the rest of the statement to remain on the record. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters! Please resume your seat. It has been the practice for senators not to repeat the offence; it just creates further division. I would remind you just to withdraw when you stand in future. Thank you. 16:01 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Without endorsing Senator Waters's comments, the opposition will not be supporting the motion—but for different reasons. Once again, we are debating a motion which is complex in nature and misplaced in this section of the daily program. The issue that Senator O'Sullivan raises in this motion is, by its nature, a very complex one and one which deserves substantive debate and not a quick vote of the Senate. This motion is also a poor conflation of the issues of safe access zones and religious freedom and freedom of association in Australia. It's fortunate that the motion now corrects the one factual error contained in the original motion proposed in the chamber weeks ago. Part of this motion refers to the now Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, when he was the Bishop for Broken Bay. The motion still incorrectly refers to an organisation called Labor for Choice. I'm glad to see that Senator O'Sullivan did correct one of these errors, but it's unfortunate— (Time expired) 16:03 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 I just want to put on the record that I support every single word that Senator Waters said today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1116, standing in the name of Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Georgiou, P Hanson, P McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B Stoker, AJ Williams, JR (teller) 32 NOES Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Leyonhjelm, DE McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Abortion 64 16:10 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1159 simply to add a date, relating to abortion law reform in Queensland, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and I ask that it be taken as formal. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Okay. So we revert back to the original. Are you seeking a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 247871 I'm seeking a point of order to clarify the position. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Go ahead. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 I did not object to the amendment. That amendment was made. I object to the formality now of the amended motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Formality has been denied. Senator Waters, are you seeking the call? Senator WATERS 192970 I am. In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 You may well be able to deny me leave to move this motion, Senator O'Sullivan, but you can no longer deny me or any woman the right to do what we choose with our bodies. Abortion is now legal in Queensland, after almost 120 years of it being a crime. This motion would simply have congratulated the hardworking advocates who championed for decades for women to have the right to make a decision about their own bodies. Senator O'Sullivan, taking the highly unusual step of denying me leave so that the Senate can't even consider this motion, typifies everything that's wrong with the abortion debate: men telling women what they can and can't do. Senator O'Sullivan is still trying to have the last say on abortion, but you lost that vote. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, I do remind you to address your remarks— Senator Waters 192970 Through you, Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, please don't interrupt me when I'm speaking, and allow me to finish. I have asked you to direct your comments to the chair. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, Deputy President. Through you, Senator O'Sullivan's days of having a say over women's bodies are over. 16:12 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Carers 65 16:13 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that: (i) 14 October to 20 October 2018, was National Carers Week, (ii) Carers Australia values the work done by unpaid carers at an estimated $60 billion a year, (iii) women make up the majority of carers—women represent 68% of primary carers for elderly people and those with a disability, and 55.5% of all carers, according to the ABS' Disability, Ageing and Carers survey, (iv) the labour force participation rate for primary carers was 56% compared to non-carers at 80%, and 73% of males who were carers were employed compared with 60.8% of females, (v) according to Carers' Australia's report, The Benefit of Carers to the Economy, about 4% of employees become carers each year, and the probability of a new carer leaving the workforce is 8% – about 26% of primary carers reduce their work hours after taking on a caring role, (vi) the 2017 Hilda survey showed Australian women retire with just over half the amount of superannuation as men, or an average of $230,907, and one in three women retire with no superannuation at all, (vii) one of the reasons women retire with less superannuation is because of the extended periods of time they spend out of the workforce to care for children or elderly parents – as a result of their lower retirement savings, they are more likely to rely on the aged pension, and (viii) in 2016, the report of the Economics References Committee on the gender retirement income gap, recommended that superannuation be paid on the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) model the costs and benefits of providing the superannuation guarantee to carers on the Carer Payment or other carer-related benefits, including the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and (ii) seriously consider providing the superannuation guarantee to carers on the Carer Payment or other benefit they are paid as a result of their caring responsibilities. 16:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 More than $8 billion in social security payments to carers was provided in 2017-18. In recognition of the invaluable work carers perform, in the 2018-19 budget the government announced an additional $85.6 million over four years to fund new supports for carers through the new integrated carer support services model. This funding is in addition to the amount already spent on delivering carer support services, which was $169 million for 2017-18. The government has a suite of superannuation reforms currently before the Senate, which will boost retirement savings, including the retirement savings of women, by billions of dollars. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart? Senator Urquhart 231199 I am seeking clarification. It was my understanding there was an amendment to this motion. Has that been amended? Senator Griff 76760 I believe you should have the amendment. It has appeared. It's incorporated in the Notice Paper. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I have been advised by the Clerk that we are not sure the amendment has been circulated—I beg your pardon; I'm informed it has been incorporated into the Notice Paper. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1164, standing in the name of Senator Griff, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:19]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 24 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Brockman, S Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 8 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Sinodinos, A Cameron, DN Fawcett, DJ Farrell, D Paterson, J Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McAllister, J Birmingham, SJ Moore, CM Macdonald, ID Watt, M Seselja, Z Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

Minister for the Environment 67 16:21 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Minister for the Environment, Ms Price, made offensive remarks to former President of Kiribati, Anote Tong; (b) further notes that former President Tong has a long history of advocating on behalf of his people, his country and the Pacific, who will be first and worst affected by climate change; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to apologise to former President Tong, commend him for his heroic actions on behalf of his people, and take seriously the threat of climate change in the Pacific region. 16:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 Minister Price addressed this issue in question time during the previous sitting of this parliament. She spoke to past President Tong and she apologised. He thanked her for her call. Australia values its strong relationship with Pacific nations, including Kiribati. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1165, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 23 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Brockman, S Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 7 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Sinodinos, A Carr, KJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Paterson, J Marshall, GM Martin, S.L Moore, CM Macdonald, ID Smith, DPB Seselja, Z Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 68 Reference 68 16:28 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson-Young, move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 March 2019: The impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment, with particular reference to: (a) the regulation of seismic testing in both Commonwealth and state waters, and the responsibilities of federal and state governments; (b) the consultation process regarding the approval of seismic testing; (c) the extent to which potential impacts are taken into account during the consultation process; (d) the protections provided by Australian Marine Parks against any potential impacts; (e) the approach taken to seismic testing internationally; (f) recent scientific findings; and (g) any other related matters. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I have convinced Senator Abetz, who is of course a supporter of the fishing industry and would like to see this motion get up. 16:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The Australian government has robust processes for assessing the environmental impacts of seismic surveys on fisheries and the marine environment. In applying the petroleum titleholders environmental plan, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority must be satisfied that the environmental impacts of the activities have been considered, control is proposed to reduce the risk of an unacceptable level, and the community and affected industry have been adequately consulted. The government continues to encourage better collaboration between the fishing and petroleum sectors to further improve certainty about the management of environmental impacts, including a joint workshop occurring this Friday in Melbourne between Seafood Industry Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. 16:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:32]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

16 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Storer, TR Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 37 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Brockman, S Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Singh, LM Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Watt, M (teller) Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I again seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the last motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave hasn't been granted, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Who denied it? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I believe it was the Labor senators. MOTIONS 69 MOTIONS Horse Racing 69 16:35 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) according to Racing Australia's latest annual report, more than 13 000 thoroughbred foals were born in 2017, (ii) there is currently no lifetime tracking of horses once they leave the racing industry, (iii) the community has an expectation that all animals used for racing are rehomed, but race horses are still ending up at knackeries, including being used for pet meat, (iv) all registered Australian racehorses have a microchip inserted into their necks which would allow them to be tracked throughout their lifetime, and (v) the RSPCA has called for a national tracing and registration system for all horses, starting with those involved in the racing industry; and (b) calls on the Australian Government to work with the states and territories to establish a national tracing and registration system for race horses, including a requirement that all slaughterhouses and knackeries scan any horse that enters the premises and those results be sent to the Australian Government and Racing Australia to be published publically. 16:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 This is a matter for the states and territories, and the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction in the area proposed. 16:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor opposes this motion because, while its intent is understandable, it is unnecessary. On 1 August 2016, Racing Australia introduced new rules relating to the traceability of horses, bringing both foals and owners under the Australian rules of racing for integrity and animal welfare purposes. These rules were amended in October 2016 to ensure stewards have access to studs and farms to monitor the health and welfare of horses. According to the chair's report in the annual report referenced in the motion, the new rules ensure the traceability and welfare of all thoroughbred horses from birth until rehoming. 16:36 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator FARUQI 250362 A national horse register makes sense for animal welfare, for safety and for biosecurity. Animal advocates, safety advocates and the racing industry itself agree about the need for a centralised national register. We are just stuck on what model, who is included and how to pay. We definitely need national leadership, and I will continue to push for federal leadership in establishing a national register. Horses do not have lifetime tracking beyond the first movement. I want to pay tribute to Juliana Waugh AM and Mark Waugh for their tireless advocacy on this issue since tragically losing their daughter, Sarah, in 2011 in a horse-riding accident. The national register is a sensible public policy. Together we can save lives, we can protect biosecurity and we can stop racing horses being discarded at knackeries when they're no longer profitable. Question negatived. E-cigarettes 70 16:38 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Before I move the motion I wish to add the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Bernardi. I, and also on behalf of Senators Leyonhjelm, Hanson and Bernardi, move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that: (i) smoking is the largest preventable cause of death in Australia, (ii) successive Commonwealth Governments have used increased excise levels as the primary mechanism to deter smokers from maintaining their habit, (iii) there is growing evidence that vaping has helped many smokers to quit, and (iv) a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have already legalised vaping; (b) notes that: (i) a recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare survey found that, despite the Government's policy to reduce smoking rates, the national smoking rate had, in fact, not declined in the period 2013-16, (ii) last month, the CSIRO released a study confirming e-cigarettes assisted smokers in quitting, (iii) a poll conducted by the Australian Retailers Association showed 61% of Australians support the legalisation of vaping and e-cigarettes, and (iv) despite the above, under current Australian law, it is illegal to purchase, possess or use liquid nicotine for vaping without a prescription from a registered Australian medical practitioner; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to immediately introduce legislation to legalise the sale, possession and use of liquid nicotine without restriction. 16:38 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 E-cigarette regulation is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. The current regulatory framework draws on existing legislation and regulations that may apply to tobacco products, therapeutic goods, poisons and consumer goods. The government takes an evidence based approach to these matters and will be commissioning some additional research to help inform policymaking in this area. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1160, moved by Senator Georgiou, be agreed to.

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

8 AYES Anning, F Bernardi, C Georgiou, P (teller) Hanson, P Hinch, D Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J O'Sullivan, B 38 NOES Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Molan, AJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Rice, J Ruston, A Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DA Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:42 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a very short statement on that previous motion. Leave not granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Who denied leave? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 A Labor senator. Senator DI NATALE 53369 I'm seeking leave to make a short statement on the motion that we just voted against. Leave not granted. Immigration 71 16:43 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1162, standing in my name for today, relating to immigration policy, be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Yes? Sorry, Senator Anning. Australian Flag 71 16:44 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) encourages the flying of the Australian flag by Australian citizens; (b) recognises the offence caused to the community when the Australian flag is disrespected; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to legislate to protect the Australian national flag by: (i) prohibiting the burning, or otherwise damaging or destroying, an Australian flag, and (ii) defacing, defiling, mutilating, trampling upon, or otherwise desecrating or dishonouring, an Australian flag. 16:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. 16:45 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The coalition government strongly supports the Australian national flag as a symbol of national identity, and encourages all Australians to do likewise. However, we ask that the question on parts (a) and (b) be put separately from the question on part (c). The government believes that the overwhelming majority of Australians deplore the actions of those who desecrate the flag. The government acknowledges that the Constitution guarantees freedom of political communication; however, the government believes there are more appropriate and respectful ways for Australians to express their political views. While there are no penalties regarding the desecration of the Australian national flag under the Flags Act 1953, the criminal law provides a basis for action against persons abusing the flag in certain circumstances, including where a breach of the peace occurs or property is destroyed. The government is satisfied that the community will make its own judgement against those who dishonour the flag in this way. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 So that there is less confusion, there are three parts to this motion—(a), (b) and (c). The question is that parts (a) and (b) of motion No. 1161 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that part (c) of motion 1161 standing in the name of Senator Anning be agreed to. Question negatived. Government senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I do remind senators that if you are calling a point of order then you must stand. I've called the vote. Anti-Poverty Week 72 16:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1163 standing in my name for today relating to Anti-Poverty Week. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Anti-Poverty Week was from 14 October to 20 October 2018, (ii) in Australia, which is ranked as the second wealthiest county in the world, there are currently 3 million people in Australia living in poverty, including 739 000 children, (iii) Australia has no poverty reduction plan, and despite economic growth, poverty levels have remained entrenched at a high level, (iv) Newstart and Youth Allowance have not had an increase in real terms since 1994, and (v) the poverty rate for sole parents rose from 35% in 2013 to 59% in 2015, and rates of poverty for sole parents remain high; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon their punitive approach to social policy and the demonisation of those accessing the social safety net, and acknowledge that the current rate of Newstart is too low and is a barrier to people participating in the workforce. (c) calls on the Federal Government to increase Newstart and Youth Allowance by $75 a week. 16:47 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The best form of welfare is a job. Our government will continue to promote policies which improve employment opportunities for those on Newstart and youth allowance, as well as continuing to index those payments twice a year. 16:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor recognises the importance of Anti-Poverty Week and the unacceptable rates of poverty and inequality in Australia. We also know the rate of Newstart is too low. It's so low it's acting as a barrier to people finding work. Too many people living on Newstart are facing very real hardship, and the work being done by community leaders on this issue is incredibly important. That's why Bill Shorten has said that we want to see a root-and-branch review into the adequacy of Newstart. The fact is the government have tried to cut Newstart. For years, they have wanted to scrap the energy supplement for Newstart recipients. Labor opposed these cuts, and thankfully the government have backed down, but we know their cuts to Newstart and the pension will be back; there is no doubt about it. In government we will review the adequacy of Newstart and related supports—a thorough review that will look at what needs to change and how to pay for it. After all, that's how Labor delivered the biggest increase to the pension in history: after a proper review. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Just so there is no confusion, I advise that I'm going to put parts (a) and (b) and then part (c). The question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of motion No. 1163, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:54]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 23 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 9 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Sinodinos, A Brown, CL Fifield, MP Cameron, DN Seselja, Z Dodson, P Brockman, S Farrell, D Birmingham, SJ Marshall, GM Macdonald, ID McAllister, J Paterson, J Moore, CM Martin, S.L Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

16:55 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I will now go to part (c) of that motion. The question is that part (c) of motion 1163 standing in the name of Senator Siewert be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

13 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Storer, TR Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Anning, F Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Watt, M (teller) Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 74 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Health Care 74 16:59 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 263418 I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, eight proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Wong. Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: A plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investment in beds, doctors and nurses; ending the Medicare freeze; and providing new MRI machines across Australia. 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. 17:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this afternoon to speak about a plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investment in beds, doctors and nurses, ending the Medicare freeze and providing new MRI machines across Australia. It's going to take a lot of work to fix the damage of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years, but Labor is willing and ready. That's why, on 7 October 2018, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, launched Labor's Fair Go Action Plan—our five-step plan for a better and fairer Australia. It's a plan to fix our schools and hospitals, ease pressure on family budgets, stand up for workers, invest in cheaper, cleaner energy and build a stronger economy that works for all. The key point I make here is that Labor has drawn a line in the sand. We have outlined the kind of government that we want to be and the kind of country we want to build for future generations. We have the courage to make the big decisions that need to be made and then be up-front about how and why we made these decisions. The contrast between Labor and the Liberals couldn't be starker. Unlike the illegitimate Scott Morrison government, whom no-one elected, Bill Shorten is leading a stable and united Labor team that is 100 per cent focused on delivering a fair go for all Australians. This is what drives the Australian Labor Party forward. We're not just talking about ourselves: we're out there fighting for our workmates, our partners and children, our parents and grandparents every single day. Australia deserves better than the neglect and the political bandaid approach to health care that we've seen under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. There are too many people battling cancer and other serious health issues that are driving for hours or paying thousands of dollars for vital scans and tests. There are too many older Australians with crook hips, bad knees, cataracts, hernias, waiting too long for an operation they desperately need now. There are too many young people and adults unable to reach out and access the mental health services they need. There are too many families and individuals skipping out on seeing their GP because they just can't afford it. Too many of our fantastic healthcare workers are overworked and underpaid. In my home state of Tasmania, as you would have to agree, Mr Acting Deputy President Duniam, these amazing frontline workers are at breaking point. The catastrophic health crisis in our home state should serve as a wake-up call for both the state and federal Liberals to do better. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have cut millions from Tasmania's hospitals and our health care system has hit a boiling point. Every week new horror stories are emerging. We have paramedics trying to treat sick people in corridors and nurses performing invasive procedures on patients who are sitting shoulder to shoulder with complete strangers in the emergency department. Our nurses, doctors and health professionals are at a breaking point. They tell me they're desperately wanting to provide the high quality of care that patients expect and deserve, but they can't because the system is broken and the local and federal Liberal governments aren't listening. We are better than this and we need to do better than this. And we will. A Shorten Labor government will invest an extra $30 million in halving Tasmania's elective surgery backlog, put more into the state's hospitals and reverse the Liberals' cuts to TAZREACH. If we are fortunate enough to win government, we'll fix our hospitals by reversing the Liberals' cuts; by unfreezing Medicare; by making record investments in mental health; by investing in more beds, more staff and more technology, including new MRI machines in the regions and suburbs; and by investing in new urgent care clinics to relieve pressure on our overworked and strained emergency departments. We're determined to fix our hospitals, and if we're elected to government we will always make sure that it's your Medicare card and not your credit card that guarantees your access to quality health in this country. Through our better hospitals fund, a Shorten Labor government will invest more in every single public hospital in the country. The better hospitals fund will see $2.8 billion extra investment from 2019 to 2025. This will fully reverse the Liberals' cuts, fund more beds in emergency departments and wards, and fund more doctors, more nurses and more health staff. This funding will be targeted to reduce emergency department and elective surgery waiting times, which, as I've outlined, have blown out under the Liberals' cuts to Medicare and hospitals. Under a Shorten Labor government, the health of Australians will never take a back seat to a handout for big business. Labor will invest an extra $764 million over the forward estimates and $2.814 billion over six years to fix Australia's public hospitals. Our plan has been fully costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. As I said, the difference between Labor and those opposite couldn't be starker. The Liberals have cut from Medicare and hospitals in every year since Tony Abbott's horror 2014 budget. This is a government that gave us the GP tax, the Medicare freeze and the $715 million in cuts from public hospitals from 2017 to 2020 alone, giving their rich mates a handout instead of funding health. This is a classic move in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison playbook. Under the Liberals, the national average wait time for elective surgery is the longest on record, the number of hospital beds available for elderly Australians is the lowest on record and the number of people presenting at emergency departments is the highest on record, and one in every three patients considered urgent isn't seen on time. The Liberals have always hated Medicare and simply cannot be trusted with it. This has been proven time and time again, whether it was by the Abbott government, the Turnbull government or, now, the Morrison government. We know that it's in the Liberals and Nationals' DNA—they just don't like Medicare. They don't like to have universal health care in this country. But Labor will always stand firm and we will always say that your Medicare card is what should give you access to good health in this country, not your credit card. We know that the community believe us; they proved that at the last election. They were concerned about Medicare and voted against this government because of it. It's only Labor that's committed to making Medicare stronger. People are sick of being short-changed by a government that favours the top end of town. They want to see a contest of ideas and policy. But what do we get from those on the opposite side? The infighting, dysfunction and chaos just continues. If they're not fighting about themselves, they're obsessing about what Bill Shorten is doing and what Labor is doing. We're doing what we said we would do, and that is that we want to contest the next election on good policies and good ideas for the future. That's why we're putting our policies out early. There won't be any reason for the Australian people not to know what Labor stands for going into the next election, because we're going to be up-front about that. They'll know, and they'll have it reinforced time and time again by us, that we'll put people first. We'll put the health of the nation before the big end of town. We'll ensure that families can afford to go and see their GP. We'll ensure that there are not mothers in this country not going to the doctors themselves, because they have to buy new school items for their children and can't afford to go to the GP. We know how important good health is. We know how important good education is. We will prioritise, and we have made the commitment to protect Medicare. We will fund good health services in this country because that's what the Australian people deserve and that's what they will get if there is a Bill Shorten government elected at the next election. 17:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak on a matter of public importance, introduced to this chamber by our colleague Senator Wong, to discuss a plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investments in beds, doctors and nurses, ending the Medicare freeze and providing new MRI machines. I thank Senator Wong, very much, for introducing this matter of public importance. I also thank Senator Polley for her contribution to the debate today, which was as dull as it was inaccurate. I get a chance now to speak genuinely of the coalition's health policy, which is terrific. The coalition is all about raising standards of living. It takes its health policy very seriously indeed, because health policy makes genuine changes to lives. Let me dispel a few myths for the chamber. First of all, let's talk about hospital investment. Federal funding for public hospitals under the coalition has increased from $13.8 billion in 2014, the last year of a Labor government in this country, to $22.7 billion in 2020-21. That is a 64 per cent increase just in the coalition's time in office. There are more hospital services, more doctors and more nurses. That is exactly what this matter of public importance is all about. Under the coalition, more Australians are seeing a doctor without having to pay record bulk billing levels for GPs. At December 2017, bulk billing rates were up to 85.8 per cent, up from 81.9 per cent in Labor's last year of office. That is 21.6 million more bulk billed GP visits. It's 1.9 million more bulk billed specialist visits. It's 6.2 million more bulk billed GP visits in regional and rural areas. Can we talk for a moment about immunisation rates in this country, which are also at record highs? The number of five-year-olds now being vaccinated has increased from 91.5 per cent, when we came to office, to 94.6 per cent. More children are covered and more children in the community are protected from diseases like mumps, measles and rubella. So successful have we been that the World Health Organization has now verified that Australia has eliminated rubella, a contagious viral illness that can result in tragic miscarriage or stillbirth. And the World Health Organization has confirmed that Australia has also maintained its measles elimination status, after being verified in 2014. On top of this, the Morrison government has invested $446.5 million in the national immunisation program, just this year alone. From 2018 all 12- and 13-year-old girls and boys will have free access to Gardasil 9. This is the vaccine that will protect them from the HPV virus, and we hope that one day it will make cervical cancer go the way of measles and rubella. That's raising the standard of living. There are life-saving drugs programs. There is an extra $51.8 million for headspace—mental health for young Australians. That takes it to a total of about $148 million for this vital program, across 107 centres around the country. Most important of all, I think, is that we have guaranteed Medicare. Medicare and the PBS are now enshrined in legislation. The Medicare Guarantee Fund will ensure that they are sustainably funded well into the future, because guaranteeing essential services can happen only when the budget is strong. However, what I am most excited about and most proud of is being part of a government that has listed more than 1,900 additional medicines worth over $10 billion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They include drugs like Kisqali, which, without a PBS subsidy, would cost the 3,150 women who have breast cancer around $72,000 per year. Four thousand Australians with chronic pain from spinal arthritis will now be receiving Simponi; without the subsidy, it would cost over $15,000 a year. One thousand Australians with a type of head and neck cancer will receive Opdivo; without the subsidy, it would cost around $50,000. Some 850 Australians with lung cancer will be receiving Keytruda; without the subsidy, it would cost those patients around $188,000. Some 220 Australians with a type of lymphoma will now be receiving Imbruvica; without the subsidy, it would cost around $134,000 per year. Some 1,125 patients with rare types of leukaemia will be receiving a drug called Pegasys; without the subsidy, that drug would cost more than $18,000 per year. And over 6,000 Australians with an inherited high cholesterol condition will be receiving Repatha; without the subsidy, it would cost those Australians around $8,000 a year. Only a strong economy, strong fiscal management and sustainable fiscal management can deliver those new additional drugs on the PBS. Please hold this in stark contrast to 2011, when Labor announced the unprecedented deferral of the listing of seven medicines, saying: … the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. They are the words used in the 2011-12 portfolio budget statement. That was when the now opposition leader, Bill Shorten, was, in fact, Assistant Treasurer. The Medicare freeze imposed by Labor—not by the coalition, Senator Polley—because Labor couldn't get its economic house in order has been lifted by the coalition government. Make no mistake: on health, education, the NDIS and all the essential services that Australians deserve and expect from a prosperous and successful nation like ours, Labor cannot be trusted. They will promise you the world and then they will hand you the atlas but not before they've slapped a tax on it along the way. If you want an example of a Labor government's health policy in action, look no further than my home state of Victoria. Three and a half years ago, only four months after being elected, Victorian Labor did its first health backflip. It announced that it would scrap 42 hospital beds from the new Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre which would have provided treatment to thousands of cancer patients. Since that decision was made, over 13,000 people with cancer are estimated to have missed out on treatment in what would have been Peter Mac Private. The decision was entirely based on Labor's ideological opposition to private health care and has cost Victorian taxpayers around $100 million. The 13th floor of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre remains vacant to this day—a state-of-the-art facility lying fallow because a Labor government would rather make a point than save a life. When you see opposition leader Bill Shorten campaigning with Labor Premier Daniel Andrews, when you see Mr Shorten fail to condemn the 'red shirts' rort that misappropriated taxpayer funds to pay for a Labor campaign, when you see Mr Shorten go to ground rather than pass judgement on his Victorian colleagues—21 members of Victorian Labor, including six ministers—who are currently being investigated by the Fraud and Extortion Squad of the Victorian police, when you see opposition leader Mr Shorten and Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews together, please recall the hollow promises that Victorian Labor made before that last election. The key to a sustainable, generous and effective healthcare policy is a strong economy. What does that look like? I'll tell you what it looks like. It looks like 3.4 per cent economic growth; 1.1 million new jobs over five years, with around 400,000 in the last 12 months alone; the female participation rate at record highs; youth unemployment at the lowest levels in a quarter of a century; unemployment at around five per cent; AAA credit ratings from three credit rating agencies; a budget surplus forecast a year early; the smallest deficit in a decade and the smallest since the coalition left office; and an expected return to surplus in 2019-20. Stronger economic growth and much stronger employment growth than anticipated at the time of the 2017-18 budget have driven increases in personal income tax and company tax receipts. Total receipts are now $13.4 billion—much higher than expected than at the time of the last budget—and total payments are $6.9 billion lower than forecast. Senator Polley wants more beds; I hear more taxes. If you want more doctors, all we hear is more taxes. If you want more nurses, that's more taxes. The politics of envy, the economics of snake oil, promises as hollow as bone—that is all you will get from Labor. That's all you ever get from Labor. The government's health policy is about changing lives. Labor's is about changing their political fortunes. I am certain that those opposite know it was Vladimir Lenin that said, 'A lie told often enough becomes the truth.' Don't Labor have form on lies? On health policy, Labor cannot be trusted. 17:20 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I rise to speak to this critically important issue, and that is what a 21st century, modern healthcare system looks like in Australia. It's good to be having a discussion on something that matters. I'm not going to spend too long dwelling on the coalition's record on health care. It's an abysmal one. They came to office. They cut the Australian National Preventive Health Agency. They've decimated prevention. Under the Abbott budget in 2014, we saw hospital funding slashed. They've frozen Medicare indexation. They have underinvested in health care and they have put us on a path towards a US two-tier health system that will cost us more and leave Australians with much worse health outcomes. No, what I want to talk about is what a positive vision for the country looks like. Election after election, people rate health as the most important priority when they cast their vote. It's about time they got a comprehensive plan for what we need to address the failings of our health system at the moment. The first thing to do is to acknowledge that health outcomes are not simply a function of having a good health system; they are also a function of those social determinants that contribute to good health. Having a roof over your head and access to affordable housing—that's a health issue. Being able to feed yourself because you're on an income support payment, like Newstart, at a level that doesn't commit you to living in poverty—that's a health issue. Being able to get a decent education for your children at a public school—that's a health issue. Dealing with climate change and addressing the challenge of climate damage—that is a health issue. A decent health system is founded on some key principles. Firstly, it's universal. It doesn't matter where you come from, it doesn't matter what your background is, it doesn't matter what your postcode is and it doesn't matter what your bank balance is; you get access to world-class health care in a decent health system. A good health system puts prevention at its heart. It focuses on prevention. A decent health system has a primary care system which people can navigate, where GPs, as the gatekeepers, are supported by allied health professionals and practice nurses. It's where people are able to get access to decent health care in a coordinated fashion. It's not churning them through; it's not six-minute medicine. That is what decent primary health care looks like. Of course, if we're going to deal with those issues and if we're going to have 21st century health care, what we need to do is make sure that our health policy is determined by evidence, not by who's got the biggest chequebook, not by the private health insurers who lobby to advance their industry, not by the junk food industry and not by the alcohol industry—that it is, indeed, informed by evidence, not by lobbyists. When it comes to prevention, the Greens support having a national preventive health agency, because we understand that that is the most cost-effective way of delivering better health for Australians. We need to focus much more on prevention, but the government's ideology is of small government, individualism, not focusing long term and wanting to get a quick hit today in the polls rather than focusing on long-term initiatives—which is what prevention is; these initiatives have long lead times. We need to invest in prevention if we're going to keep people well. We need to make sure that we address the issue of obesity, and, certainly, in the next few weeks, we'll be announcing the Greens-led recommendations from the Senate inquiry into obesity. But, again, you have to take on those vested interests. You have to take on the food lobby, you have to take on the alcohol industry and you have to take on the advertisers if you're going to address some of those structural problems that contribute to unhealthy weight. When it comes to primary care, we need to have a system that moves away from throughput, where it's simply a case of GPs being driven towards shorter consultation times—basically, throughput rather than outcomes. That's why we want to see chronic disease management through a system of blended payments, as was promised in the Health Care Homes trials, which failed to deliver. We want that to be also addressed. We need greater investment in our hospital system, but we've got to take the cost shifting out of it, which is why we support an independent body to address those funding shortfalls. Denticare, Aboriginal health and addressing the health impacts of climate change are all part of the Greens vision for health care in Australia. 17:25 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I just want to concentrate for a few minutes on the divide in this country between those in rural and regional Australia and those in the cities. There is a completely unacceptable divide in health outcomes for those in rural and regional Australia. We've often heard Labor say your health outcomes shouldn't be determined by your credit card. Well, neither should they be determined by your postcode. People in country Australia have a lower life expectancy—3.4 years lower for men and two years lower for women. It's even worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. People in the country experience higher rates of cardiovascular disease. They experience higher rates of diabetes. They experience higher rates of lung cancer and higher rates of suicide. Rural Australians are less likely to be covered by private health insurance, are less likely to see a dentist every year and are more likely to visit an emergency department. In rural Australia, there are fewer pharmacists, psychologists, podiatrists, physiotherapists, optometrists and occupational therapists per capita than in the cities. Rural Australians see GPs half as often as people in the city and see specialists at one-third the rate. That's because they face long travel times and extra costs just to get to a GP, and too often many of them face the prospect of travelling to a capital city to see a specialist. Of course, there are far fewer doctors in country Australia—263 doctors for every 100,000 people, compared to 442 doctors for every 100,000 people in the city. What's striking about these numbers is that, under this government, they haven't changed. They have not changed. It's okay for Senator Hume to come here and argue that the contribution from Senator Polley was dull. I don't agree with that. I thought Senator Polley's position was clear. Senator Polley outlined the deficiencies in the coalition government in the context of health and also the deficiencies that I've outlined in relation to the divide between metropolitan Australians and rural and regional Australians. We hear the National Party come in here and argue what great things they're doing for rural and regional Australia. Well, they've failed in health, they've failed in education, they've failed in penalty rates and they've failed in the context of putting a roof over people's heads. They are just not up to it. Not just is the junior partner not up to it; the Liberal Party are clearly not up to governing Australia. Day after day, we see more division in this government. We now see a Prime Minister trying to pretend that he's one of the ordinary people in Australia, with a different baseball hat on every day. Well, putting on a different baseball hat doesn't mean you're dealing with the real issues. The real issues are health, education and making sure that there's not such a great divide between rural and regional Australia and the rest of the country. We do have a terrific health system, but that health system will be divided by this government through their argument for small government and through the fear campaigns you heard Senator Hume set off on. Someone has to pay for a health system. If big business are not paying their fair share, it falls on those that can't afford it—and we need more investment in health. 17:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a pleasure to make a contribution to the MPI today, following on from the contributions of Senator Cameron, Senator Polley and you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hume, and to debate the 'plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investment in beds, doctors and nurses; ending the Medicare freeze; and providing new MRI machines across Australia'—a statement packed with assumptions and assertions about the state of play. I will pick up on something that Senator Cameron said in the last part of his contribution, which is that we do have a fantastic health system in this country. I don't agree with where he went after that, which I'm sure he is not surprised by, but it is the case that certainly in my home state of Tasmania, while there is always going to be room for improvement when demand increases, we do have a system that is catering more for Tasmanians. Senator Cameron is right: when you move out of metropolitan areas, when you go out of the highly built-up and more populated areas, access to health services is harder to come by, especially for specialist services. That's why in Tasmania, under the guidance of the fantastic health minister, Michael Ferguson, we are seeing a terrific reform of the broken health service down there, the one that was left in tatters. I will come to the record on that and compare the pair, looking at how things were in 2013, only four short years ago, and how they are today under the Hodgman Liberal government, which has invested a huge amount in health services in that state. Going to those assertions in the MPI around investments in health and how things are structured and situated in Australia, we need only recall the 'Mediscare' campaign that we saw at the last federal election, in 2016. I recall standing at the pre-poll booth at Rosny Park in southern Tasmania, and a fellow came up to those of us who were standing at the pre-poll booth and he was holding one of those fake Medicare cards and he was outraged. But here we are almost three years on and, of course, Medicare was never privatised. It was a Labor lie. It was one of those scare campaigns that Labor wanted to whip up—and did so successfully, unfortunately. They fooled a great many Tasmanians, and indeed Australians, into thinking that somehow the government was going to privatise the entity that provides for public health, Medicare. It was never going to happen. That's why this so-called plan that has been put forward by the Labor Party is something that you can't bank on. It is something that we have to interrogate closely. I think the best way to do that is to check the facts and see how things stack up here in Australia—federally and right across the country—and, as I said before, when we examine the situation in my home state of Tasmania. As I understand was pointed out by Senator Hume a little earlier on in this discussion, the amount of federal funding that has been provided to public hospital services under this government has increased by a huge amount—from $13.3 billion in the financial year 2013-14 to $23.4 billion in the year 2020-21. That is a 76 per cent increase in funding to public hospital services. We should remember that the administration and delivery of public health services are the domain of the states and territories. Of course, the Commonwealth, through the various partnership agreements, through the GST and through other funding streams, does support the state and territory governments to administer and fund those services. We have the five-year hospital funding agreements where we are seeing an increase of funding by $30.1 billion from the year 2020-21 to the year 2024-25. That is a massive increase, taking it from $100 billion to $130.1 billion. This agreement has been signed up to by six state and territory governments—Western Australia, the ACT, the Northern Territory, South Australia, the great state of Tasmania and also New South Wales. That's three Labor and three Liberal governments, meaning that there is bipartisan support for the amount of funding that is being provided to states to administer their much-needed health services. In the case of Victoria, one would assume that the Andrews government is playing politics, holding things up and not signing up in the lead-up to a state election. I can't think what other reason there would be. It is very disappointing for the people of Victoria to be missing out on that much-needed funding to secure the future of their health services. You only have to consider those facts—the support for Medicare, the numbers related to bulk-billing and, of course, all of the statistics and the case studies around the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—to understand how much is being invested in public health and in providing services and medications that are so very much needed by many, many Australians. Senator Hume was talking before about drugs like Orkambi to help sufferers of cystic fibrosis. A 12-month period would cost a patient $250,000 without the subsidy that the PBS provides. That's a fantastic initiative that our fellow Australians contribute to through paying their taxes that enable these people to access their medicines at an affordable rate—a far more affordable rate than $250,000 a year. That drug, like so many others, sat on that list for so long before it was approved to be provided under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. On bulk-billing, as has already been stated, record numbers of people are being provided bulk-billing for health services—86.1 per cent for the 2017-18 financial year, the highest bulk-billing rate at any time since Medicare came into existence. The numbers are that 154.7 million GP services were provided across the country and 133.2 million were bulk-billed. So, on these stories about people being denied access to bulk-billing and doctors jacking up fees, this bears out that record numbers of people are being able to access this service. Again, it points to another Labor scare campaign. On support for Medicare, as Senator Hume also pointed out, the Medicare freeze which was put in place by the Labor government in the year 2013 is being removed by the coalition, by this government, the one we've heard such nasty things about this afternoon. Huge amounts of funding are being provided to Medicare. In 2017-18, it was $24 billion. In the next financial year, 2018-19, it will be $25 million. It will be $26 billion in 2019-20, $27 billion in 2020-21 and $29 billion in 2021-22. These are some facts that have been seen around the country about how funding is being administered. It puts paid to the claims that are being made by those opposite that funding support isn't there, that we aren't investing in health and that it's at breaking point. Indeed, Senator Cameron made the point that we do have a fantastic health system, a claim that I believe he is right on. I will turn to Tasmania briefly, though. Talking about small government, as Senator Cameron did, it was the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania that wanted to privatise the Mersey Community Hospital. They wanted to outsource it. They didn't want it to be supported by government. It was the Tasmanian Liberal government, the Hodgman government, and the coalition government here in Canberra that engineered a deal to make sure that that health facility remained part of the statewide health network, where we are seeing great reforms and where people in regional communities are getting access to the health services and specialist services they need, with the support of the coalition government here in Canberra. Some of the statistics I put on the record before around access to health were provided during the 2018 Tasmanian state election campaign. They show a contrast to where things were back in 2014, when the Hodgman government came to power after the Bartlett-Lennon-Bacon-Giddings-McKim government had fallen. In the year 2014 there were 15,315 elective surgeries performed in our public health system. At the end of 2017 there were over 19,000 services—that is a massive increase. We had 3,375 full-time-equivalent nurses; we now have 3,630. The number of ambulance ramping hours at the Royal Hobart Hospital—our capital city hospital—has dropped by 25 per cent. This is under the management and guidance of the Hodgman government and the fantastic health minister, Michael Ferguson. So to claim that things are not being supported and are not being appropriately funded is patently wrong. In the case of Senator Polley's comments that these are Liberal cuts to health: she is wrong. The cuts they talk about are a result of Labor's funny money. The promises they made in the past were ones they could never have delivered on, because they were never elected. They didn't receive the mandate to fund the promises they made. It's all lies with Labor when it comes to funding of health. (Time expired) 17:40 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Right now, there are more than 30,000 people in Kalgoorlie-Boulder who have to travel to Perth by car, bus, train or plane in order to get an MRI scan. If you don't already know, that's a 600-kilometre journey, one way, just to get a scan. I wonder how many of you in here have had to travel that far to get an MRI. Travelling that far often costs hundreds of dollars, especially when you take overnight accommodation into account. Thankfully, after months and months of significant lobbying by One Nation, Kalgoorlie hospital was granted a Medicare licence for an MRI machine in June. It was the first licence to have been issued in years. The WA state Labor government has already set aside $3 million to buy the machine and install it at Kalgoorlie regional health campus. But guess what? The state Labor government is now saying it will take up to two years before the machine is installed. How is that saving lives? What's more frightening is that from next month older Australians will be denied Medicare rebates for a GP-ordered MRI. By 'older Australians' I mean those who are 50 and over and need a scan for their knees. That's at least 80 per cent of you in this chamber. We wouldn't have this issue if the government provided more MRI licences to independent imaging clinics which aren't part of the duopoly. There are about two chains which run the shop when it comes to scans, and quite often they are using old or outdated equipment. Some of the independent imaging clinics have far superior, newer equipment which can home in on cancers and tumours that the scanners the multinationals use have failed to detect. I know this because I have seen it with my own eyes. In my home state of Western Australia there's been significant investment in two hospitals—the Fiona Stanley Hospital and the new Perth Children's Hospital. A lot of money has been spent on both, but the Children's Hospital has had its fair share of troubles. It was over budget before it opened, and who can forget the scandal which saw lead leaching into the water supply? Despite this new investment in tertiary and children's hospitals, doctors have warned of increasing waiting times at Perth hospitals and a growing waiting list for elective surgeries, which are putting the public health system under strain. Then you have more and more people cancelling their private health insurance, which is putting the public health system under further strain. Even emergency departments are struggling to admit or discharge patients within the four-hour target. There is no doubt in my mind that the health system in Australia was once the envy of many other nations. However, it is quickly losing its much-respected ranking. The government of the day must apply a fair and meaningful approach to ensure all Australians are looked after to the extent that all of us in this chamber expect. 17:44 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise today to contribute on a topic about which I've talked on my occasions in this place: the importance of appropriately funding our health and hospital system. This is a fundamental responsibility of government, yet it is one that the current Liberal-National government has failed to grasp. This is a divided and dysfunctional government that you wouldn't put in charge of a chook raffle at the present time. They are not capable of coming up with a plan to fix our hospitals. Just look at the latest backflip at the moment in relation to the funding for Foodbank—a terrible outcome, a $300,000 cut to an essential service. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is open to reviewing this terrible decision, but it highlights the point: this is a government that cannot be trusted with important decisions that affect Australians. This is a government with a terrible track record when it comes to health. I've spoken about these matters before, but we know that the previous Prime Minister tried to implement a GP tax, and Australians are now paying $4 more out of their own pocket every time they go to the doctor and $12 more out of pocket when they need to see a specialist, and there have been other cruel cuts to the health budget. Other speakers have spoken about the $715 million ripped out of hospitals around the country. From my own state that's $160 million taken out of Queensland hospitals, the equivalent of slashing the jobs of 1,435 nurses in our state. Brisbane's dedicated children's hospital, the Queensland Children's Hospital, has suffered a $6.5 million cut. The Metro North Health Services District has lost $32 million under the Liberal-Nationals, and let's see where that's coming from: $14.3 million from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital; $7.7 million from The Prince Charles Hospital at Chermside; $2.9 million from Caboolture Hospital—and we learnt during the Longman by-election just how strongly locals felt about that; and $4.2 million, a funding cut equivalent to 37 fewer nurses, from Redcliffe Hospital in the seat of Petrie. What's worse is that the Queensland government is still waiting for this divided and dysfunctional government to pay the $780 million owed for procedures delivered as far back as 2014. It is an absolute disgrace that under the previous Prime Minister the federal government spent 51 weeks arguing over undisputed funding and withholding payment from Queensland hospitals for procedures already delivered going back to 2014. As I've indicated, there is still funding missing. Queensland hospitals are still owed $780 million for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years. This funding, as I said, is for operations and procedures performed as far back as 2016, in this case. It is a travesty that the government doesn't even want to meet its commitments for procedures already delivered. I'm going to be concentrating on the issue of MRI licences a bit later on, but at this point it's worthwhile noting that, in contrast to the government, Labor has a proud record when it comes to MRI licences. We granted 238 of them when we were last in government. This government has delivered only five in the last five years. That's an indictment of their record. I will also highlight some of the other features of the plan, coming from Mr Morrison, to rip even more money from public hospitals. They've cut billions of dollars from public hospital budgets between now and 2025 and they also want to retrospectively claw back funding for services already provided. This just doesn't affect Queensland; as I've indicated, it affects other states, and I think every other state has indicated its opposition to this plan. By contrast, Labor has a positive plan to restore $2.8 billion to hospitals through our already announced Better Hospitals Fund, which I think will be very much welcomed out there in the community. It will see an investment in every single public hospital in the country with, as I said, $2.8 billion for more beds and shorter surgery wait times. This fund will restore $2.8 billion from 2019 to 2025—fully reversing the Turnbull government's and other cuts in funding—for more beds, emergency departments, wards, doctors, nurses and health staff. This funding will be particularly targeted at reducing emergency department and elective surgery waiting times, which have blown out under the Liberals' cuts to Medicare and hospitals. We know that, right now, the national average waiting time for elective surgery is the longest on record. The number of hospital beds available for elderly Australians is the lowest on record. The number of people presenting at emergency departments is the highest on record, and yet one in every three patients whose cases are considered urgent aren't seen on time. There were 7.8 million emergency department presentations in 2016-17, which is one million more than five years ago. This, as you can appreciate, puts our hospital system under immense pressure, which means that it needs more funding to keep up with increasing demand from the growing ageing population. Labor has a commitment to benefit every hospital and patient in the country, and it's only Labor that can be trusted with the universality of our healthcare system. We know that those opposite are not truly committed to supporting our Medicare system, based on the number of occasions in the past that they've taken the opportunity to attack it. As I said, I want to focus on MRIs, because they are so important in helping to care for people, and I want to point out the fact that the coalition government's failure on this issue has led to the fight being taken up by Labor candidates around the country, including in a couple of my duty electorates. I do want to pay tribute to Zac Beers, in the seat of Flynn, who has taken up this issue, and highlight the fact that the current federal member, Mr O'Dowd, has been unable to secure a Medicare MRI licence for Gladstone. It is of course the latest in a long list of failures by Mr O'Dowd. Despite clear evidence that Gladstone needs an MRI licence—including a bipartisan Senate committee report that recognised this region as an area of shortage—Gladstone was snubbed in the Liberals' announcement of new licences a couple of months ago. Other areas did receive MRI licences. Mr Morrison as Treasurer cut $1 million from the Gladstone Hospital and over $6 million from Central Queensland hospitals between 2017 and 2020. In contrast, Mr Beers has been able to get a commitment that a future Shorten Labor government would deliver an MRI licence for Gladstone and more than reverse the Liberals' cuts to the Gladstone Hospital as part of our $2.8 billion Better Hospitals Fund that I've talked about. I also want to pay tribute to Corinne Mulholland, our candidate in the seat of Petrie—and I have spoken about this matter previously. Ms Mulholland has also been successful in getting a commitment from Mr Shorten that a future Labor government would deliver a new MRI licence for the hospital. This highlights the spectacular failure by current member Mr Howarth to secure such a licence. Despite the fact that he says he supports it, all he has offered is the fact that the Queensland government can go through a process for it. So he is offering Queenslanders paperwork rather than delivering for them, despite being in office for five years. Whilst Liberal-National members continue to dillydally, hiding behind pending government reports and buck-passing, Labor is getting on with the job. Only Labor can be trusted to deliver— (Time expired) 17:54 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I was flicking through my email this morning and I saw the MPI for the day come up. These days we don't look at things in detail, we don't read the headers and footers first; we just flick to the body of the texts and we read them. I read: A plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investment in beds, doctors and nurses; ending the Medicare freeze; and providing new MRI machines across Australia. I thought: 'Wow! I wonder who wrote that excellent MPI. It probably came from Minister Cormann, Minister Birmingham or perhaps Minister Reynolds.' But then I glanced down and saw it came from Senator Wong. I thought, 'Goodness gracious me.' Seemingly I'm not the only one who read it incorrectly, because those opposite don't seem to have been particularly enthusiastic about their own MPI anyway. This MPI does actually reflect what the government has been delivering: a plan to fix Australian hospitals. That's what the government's delivering. We've got record hospital investment. In fact, this government has increased the investment in the public hospital system over the period 2013-14 to 2020-21 from $13.3 billion to $23.4 billion, a 76 per cent increase. As Senator Hume very eloquently put it in her contribution, repeating something often enough does not make it true. There are no cuts here. In fact, there are very, very strong increases into the future. Under our new five-year hospital agreement, funding will increase by $30 billion from 2021 to 2024-25, an increase of 30 per cent, from $100 billion to $130 billion. This has been signed on by three Labor and three Liberal governments at the state level: Western Australia, the ACT, Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. I repeat: the state Labor governments recognise a good thing when they see it—except, of course, Victoria, and Senator Duniam very eloquently went through some of the reasons why that wasn't the case. This funding agreement equates to millions of new hospital services each year for Australian patients in our public hospitals, and thousands of new frontline doctors and nurses. So 'a plan to fix Australia's hospitals, including more investment in beds, doctors and nurses' gets a tick from this government. In the brief time I have left, let's go to Labor's record on the Medicare freeze. Minister Reynolds, do you remember who introduced the Medicare freeze? I think it might have been Labor. It might have been Labor in government. The indexation freeze was introduced in 2013. In fact, this coalition government has provided $1.5 billion for re-indexation. So this government gets a tick on the MPI. Finally, on 'providing new MRI machines across Australia', access to MRI scans is important, and more than 400,000 Australians will now be able to access life-saving scans for cancer, stroke, heart disease and other medical conditions, with a $175 million investment from this government in new MRI machines. The first 10 locations have been announced: Mount Druitt Hospital in New South Wales, Northern Beaches Hospital in New South Wales, Sale Hospital in Victoria, Monash Children's Hospital in Victoria, Pindara Private Hospital in Queensland, Toowoomba Hospital in Queensland, St John of God Midland Hospital in WA, Kalgoorlie Health Campus in WA, Mount Barker hospital in South Australia and the Royal Darwin Hospital in the Northern Territory. There will be a competitive public application process for a further 20 Medicare-eligible MRIs, and we invite prospective facilities to apply for consideration. I know a number of excellent facilities in Western Australia have applied to be part of this new rollout. So this government does have a plan. It has a plan for the hospitals. It has a plan for the MRIs. We have made a contribution to the ending of the Medicare indexation freeze. We will continue to manage the economy in such a way as to be able to fund all the essential services that Australians require. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The time for the matter of public importance discussion has expired. NOTICES 83 NOTICES Withdrawal 83 17:59 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I withdraw a general business notice of motion lodged earlier today relating to Foodbank. DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 83 Consideration 83 18:00 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move That the Senate take note of the document. I wish to make a few comments on the report of the Review of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This document was tabled as a result of an order for the production of documents that the Senate passed on a motion from me. It relates to the implementation of the 339 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It was a report that the minister commissioned that, in fact, cost a significant amount of money. In Senate estimates we established that the report cost $691,793, of which $198,447 came from departmental funding and $493,346 came from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; in fact, under a safety and wellbeing program. It was a review that people have been calling for for a long time. People have been calling for a long time for an understanding of which 339 recommendations have been implemented. It was a desktop study that, in fact, relied on the states and territories to self-assess. I've got to say I have some significant issues with that self-assessment in terms of what they say is now implemented. If they've funded one particular program where the funding has now run out, that's counted as that recommendation being at least partially implemented, which I think is of very deep concern. I very much call into question the analysis of what has been implemented and what's been partially implemented, given that we are seeing an ever-worsening rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people going into the justice system; in particular, Deputy President, in our home state of Western Australia but also in other states around the country. That's not to mention, obviously, the most important fact: we are still seeing deaths in custody. We've seen 407 Aboriginal deaths in custody since the royal commission, with 147 over the past decade. Not only are we seeing these deaths in custody in our home state of Western Australia, Deputy President; we are seeing the awful reasons people are going into custody. In the case of Ms Dhu it was for fine defaults. She then, unfortunately, died in custody. We aren't seeing the issues being adequately addressed. I'd argue very strongly that the implementation of these recommendations has not gone as far as the reading of the report suggests. We're also seeing Aboriginal people dying in custody from ailments and conditions that they should not be dying of. In other words, they are not receiving the medical attention that they should be receiving in the justice system. It is now almost 30 years since the royal commission report was tabled, and we're still seeing incarceration rates increasing. They have not decreased as a result of implementation. These are very strong recommendations, so I'd argue very strongly that they have not been adequately implemented. In fact, we've seen a doubling of the incarceration rate since the completion of the royal commission report. We are not getting it right in this country. Imprisonment is not a solution to poverty and social issues, and one of the royal commission recommendations was around imprisonment as a last resort. We are not seeing that implemented around the country. We are not seeing imprisonment being imposed as the last resort—clearly not, when we're seeing people end up in prison as a result of fine default and not paying their fines. In some instances, people don't even know that they've been fined in the first place. The first they know of it is when the police come knocking on their doors. According to the government's own report, some of the key areas that have not been implemented relate to the cycle of offending, self-determination and non-custodial approaches. I particularly want to focus on this issue of self-determination. It is absolutely critical. It comes out so strongly in the royal commission report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Department of Home Affairs 84 Consideration 84 18:07 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In respect of document No. 84, the 2017-18 report of the Department of Home Affairs, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Obviously, the Department of Home Affairs is responsible for Australia's cruel offshore detention regime. As someone who has been to Manus Island many times and witnessed firsthand the human cost of Australia's offshore detention regime, I can very clearly let the Senate know that this is a humanitarian calamity that has been caused by the cruel policy lock step of the ALP and the LNP in this place. We've seen many, many hundreds of people over the years exiled to either Manus Island or Nauru. They are Australia's political prisoners. We are well aware—or we should be aware—that there have been murders, assaults and sexual assaults, including sexual assaults of children. We have seen riots. We have seen detainees shot at. We have seen detainees being beaten and abused. We have seen children who are in a catatonic state who have basically withdrawn from the world because of the trauma they have suffered at the hands of the ALP and the LNP due to decisions made by both of those political parties while they were in government in this country, including decisions taken by the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, when he was immigration minister. As the Australian Greens' immigration spokesperson, part of my job is to bear witness to what is going on on Manus Island and Nauru. It's very clearly on the record that I have been to Manus Island many times. But I recently applied for a visa to visit Nauru, and that was rejected by the Nauruan government. Interestingly, in the communication— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, pursuant to an order earlier in the day, the debate is interrupted. Leave is granted for you to continue your remarks. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 84 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Disallowance 84 18:11 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Pursuant to the amended motion that went through the chamber this afternoon, I move the following motions together: That the Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00779]. That the Social Security (Administration) (Job Search Efforts) Determination 2018, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00776]. That the Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00783]. I intend that the chamber will debate them together, but then I will put them separately to enable the chamber to vote differently on the different instruments. These instruments have been made since the passage through the parliament of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018. The Australian Greens did not support the passage of this legislation. In fact, we strongly opposed it, having raised numerous concerns about and opposed a number of the schedules. Schedules 14 and 15 are the relevant schedules for the purposes of today's debate—they are the ones these instruments refer to. Schedule 14 made changes to the reasonable excuses for people looking for work, and schedule 15 introduced the targeted compliance framework, commonly called the TCF. The targeted compliance framework commenced on 1 July 2018. Hence, it has been in operation for four months. The job search instrument sets out how the Secretary of the Department of Jobs and Small Business is to determine whether or not a person who is receiving a participation payment has undertaken adequate job search efforts in relation to a period for the purposes of determining whether a mutual obligation failure has been committed under the targeted compliance framework, or the TCF. Specifically, under paragraph 42AC(1)(e) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The instrument specifies factors relating to both the quality of job search efforts and the quantity of job search efforts that the secretary must consider when determining whether or not the person has undertaken adequate job search efforts in relation to a period. In relation to the quality of job search efforts, the factors that the secretary must take into account are whether the person has undertaken job search efforts in relation to jobs at a range of levels of seniority and remuneration that are suitable work for the person—these are really important points—then, in relation to jobs in a variety of fields and occupations, including fields and occupations other than those in which the person has qualifications or experience, whether that work is suitable work for the person and a variety of methods to make contact with potential employers have been used. In relation to the quantity of the job search efforts, the factors that the secretary must take into account are the number of job search efforts undertaken in that period and whether or not those job search efforts meet the number specified in the person's employment pathway plan. The determination also provides guidance regarding what will count as a job search effort to assist the secretary in his or her calculation of the number of job search efforts undertaken in relation to a period. For example, if the person contacts an employer more than once in relation to a particular role during the period in question, this will only be counted as one job search effort, even if a number of efforts are made over that period. The instrument tightens the requirements for job search for those receiving a participation payment. Even though employment service providers are required to consider the quality of a person's job searches prior to this instrument coming into effect, the relevant guideline only required providers to think about how useful each job search was to improving the jobseeker's chances of getting a job and listed a number of matters that they could consider when contemplating this—specifically, the jobseeker's skills and the types of jobs they'd applied for, if the types of jobs applied for were reasonable given the jobs available in the local area, the different ways the jobseeker applied for jobs, and if job referrals were followed up and how this was done. The guideline outlined that providers were also required to consider factors that affected their circumstances during the period, listing five factors, one of which was whether the jobseeker had a vulnerability indicator. The explanatory statement for the job search instrument does not mention these same factors. It merely says that providers, as delegates of the secretary, may also exercise discretion when assessing compliance with these requirements and may take into account factors such as a person's individual circumstances and local labour market conditions when working out if a person has undertaken adequate job search. In our view, this is a weakening of the protections, as it is no longer necessary for the person's circumstances to be taken into account and there is no longer a list of factors providing the minimum to be considered. We are deeply concerned, therefore, about how this will be interpreted. What we know from those receiving participation payments is that employment service providers often do not ensure that the number of job searches specified in the person's employment pathway is suitable for the person and the area in which they live. So how can we be sure that the same employment service providers will exercise discretion and take into account other factors as a person's individual circumstances when that's not specifically specified? There is also concern that people could be found in breach, depending on the discretion applied by the employment service provider, regarding what is considered suitable work for each individual. It could be that someone is found not to have undertaken adequate job searches because they have only applied for jobs below their qualifications or, conversely, only applied for jobs in their qualification fields. This is all about the employment service provider's interpretation at any given time. Forcing people to apply for a variety of jobs at different skill levels in a variety of ways will not create jobs where they don't exist. It merely forces those people to comply with rigid requirements that may not meet their needs. They should be able to adopt job search methods that work for them. The reasonable excuse instrument sets out what factors the Secretary of the Department of Jobs and Small Business must and must not consider when deciding whether a person who is receiving a participation payment has a reasonable excuse for committing a compliance failure under both the targeted compliance framework and the previous compliance framework, which continues to apply to participants in the Community Development Program, commonly known as CDP, who have been defined as 'declared program participants'. The list of factors that must be taken into account replicates, with some minor amendments, most of the factors from the previous reasonable excuse instruments. With regard to what must be taken into account by the secretary for both compliance frameworks, the secretary must not take into account a factor where they are not satisfied this factor directly prevented the person from meeting the requirement. For those subject to the TFC, the instrument provides that the secretary must not take into account a person's drug or alcohol misuse or dependency in determining whether they had a reasonable excuse for a compliance failure where they have previously had their misuse or dependency as a reasonable excuse and they have refused to participate in available and appropriate treatment for their drug or alcohol misuse or dependency to which they have been referred and which they are able to participate in. This is not applicable to those subject to the previous compliance frameworks—specifically the declared program participants. Our main concern with this instrument is that it implements the 2017-18 budget measure to restrict the use of drug or alcohol misuse or dependency as a reasonable excuse for a compliance failure to one occasion for those outside of CDP. We do not support this measure. If the person concerned has an addiction, that is a health issue and should be dealt with by a health professional. The government should not be penalising people for their drug or alcohol misuse or dependency or singling it out without addressing the underlying issues for this misuse or dependency, such as physical and mental health issues, childhood trauma or poverty. This measure fails to understand the complicated process of recovery and will only cause harm to vulnerable members of our community. There are many barriers to employment the government could be focusing their attention and efforts on instead, such as lack of transportation and perceived discrimination, to name but two. The 'reasonable excuse' amendment and repeal instrument amends one of the previous 'reasonable excuse' instruments, referred to as the DEEWR determination, to remove references in that instrument to the factors prescribed for the purposes of the previous compliance framework. This has the effect of limiting that instrument so that it no longer applies to recipients of participation payments. This instrument also repeals the other previous 'reasonable excuse' instrument, referred to as the FaHCSIA determination, as it is redundant. The overall effect is that the 'reasonable excuse' instrument is now the sole instrument setting out all of the factors the secretary must and must not take into account when deciding whether a person in receipt of a participation payment has a reasonable excuse for committing a compliance failure. By disallowing this instrument and the 'reasonable excuse' instrument, the DEEWR determination would revert back to how it was and the FaHCSIA determination would be revived. These instruments set out the factors the secretary must take into account when deciding whether a person who is receiving a parent payment has a reasonable excuse for committing a compliance failure under the previous compliance framework—that is, they would apply to declared program participants and the measure to tighten 'reasonable excuse' in relation to drugs and alcohol for those outside of the CDP would be gone. These particular instruments are applying a punitive, top-town approach to the way we support and work with those who are looking for work. When we are looking at the issues here and the decisions that are being made—and I referred earlier to the discretion of the employment service providers—we are seeing a lot of failures in the operation of jobactive, because they're operating within the jobactive system. We are seeing a lot of failures of that particular system. I go back to the instrument where we're talking about the job search efforts and remind the chamber that this will be implemented by the consultants of employment service providers, who, in fact, are not required to have qualifications. They are often referred to as employment consultants or employment case workers, depending which service provider they're employed by. It's quite obvious from the evidence we've already received in the jobactive inquiry being carried out by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee that there are no formal qualifications required or specified for employment consultants. So there are a variety of consultants holding a variety of qualifications, but there are no formal qualifications required. The employment consultants have case loads that are far too large, and they're struggling to address and implement the new targeted compliance framework. We heard the week before last at the inquiry about the fact that employment service providers, the peak organisations, were not consulted before the government announced in the budget the new compliance framework they intended to introduce. The first they learnt of that was when there was an announcement made in the budget. We, and they, are operating within a system that does not adequately support jobseekers, and we hear that over and over again in submissions to the inquiry, in the phone calls and emails that I get very regularly to my office, and from constituents, who are walking into our office now more than ever to outline their concerns about the system. The issue here in terms of adequate job searches is that people could be pinged for only looking for jobs that are in their area of qualifications. They could be pinged for not looking at jobs that are in areas for which they are not qualified but which are considered more entry-level jobs or they could be pinged for focusing on that particular area and for looking for jobs that they are overqualified for. In other words, the goalposts could be anywhere for people in terms of their jobactive searches. I hear consistently from people, particularly those that are in stream A, that they have, in fact, found the jobs themselves, that they did not receive adequate support from their employment service provider and that they are not getting access to the Employment Fund. People consistently talk about not getting access to the Employment Fund. They talk about basically being forced to sign their employment pathway plan or their employment plan—which they in fact don't support and are very concerned about. We are working within a system which witnesses to the jobactive inquiry a couple of weeks ago described as a punitive based approach, an aggressive system that relates to compliance, which is what this new job search instrument is about. It's about more and more compliance in a system that is supposed to be helping people find work. A large number of people who have emailed and phoned my office and constituents who have come to my office talk about a system that punishes and is focused on compliance rather than helping. With the introduction of the TCF, more and more people are concerned that employment consultants or caseworkers are now seen as the enforcers of the system rather than being there to support and help people find work. They are the ones that now determine the demerit points that people will receive—at least up to the demerit point 5 through that green and amber zone. That is going to start hurting the relationship between a jobseeker and the employment consultant even more. We're also hearing about mismatching between Work for the Dole placements and people's qualifications. Again, compare that to the requirement to look for areas within your field of qualifications and areas outside your field of qualifications. We hear repeatedly of people being placed in Work for the Dole placements that are completely unsuitable to provide training and to provide a work-like experience for people. For example, a witness to the inquiry said that he had quite significant qualifications in communications and he was put to work in a laundry folding sheets and sorting out the coloured clothes from the white clothes. I fail to see how that has given that person a work-like experience or any training in his area of expertise. One wonders how people could think that that is a system that is being supportive of people and does not 'demonise' them, 'shame' them and make them 'feel worthless'. All those words are words that I have heard people express to me about this system. These instruments are implementing areas of a system that are not working, that don't provide the sorts of supports that people looking for work need. I've not heard one person say to me in all my time— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Siewert, you will be in continuation, as the sitting of the Senate is now suspended. Proceedings suspended from 18:30 t o 19:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z To conclude my contribution on these disallowances: these instruments need to be viewed in the context of the impact their implementation will have on the whole system, which has a very compliance focused, punitive approach. Where jobseekers are extremely stressed, their relationship with and trust of their employment service provider or consultant is being eroded even further, because of the impact of the targeted compliance framework. Job service providers and employment consultants are now being seen as the ones who have to enforce the compliance system, to the point where I've heard job service providers and peak organisations in the jobactive inquiry, for which we had the first hearing two weeks ago, express concern that they are now the enforcers of the system and that that is eroding the trust with their clients. We need to look at the changes that the delegated instruments will implement within the system. We are extremely concerned about the impact these changes will have on jobseekers and the discretion that they provide employment consultants in the way they make judgements around job searches. That's one of the delegated instruments. The other deals with reasonable excuses. We're extremely concerned that this will have a detrimental impact on jobseekers. Those with addictions are going to find it extremely difficult. 19:32 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Labor supports these disallowances. Senator Siewert has outlined in great detail the issues around this disallowance motion. We support both the disallowances: on reasonable excuse and on job search. On reasonable excuse, the determination implements the 2017-18 budget measure to tighten the reasonable excuse of drug and alcohol misuse or dependency for people looking for work outside of the Community Development Program. The government's determination is likely to adversely affect people who are dealing with drug or alcohol dependency. The determination limits the use of drug or alcohol dependency as a reasonable excuse for missing an appointment or other mutual obligation requirement to one occasion only. If the person participating in the program chooses to undergo treatment, that could satisfy all or part of their obligation requirements. However, if a person seeks treatment and then relapses before the treatment is completed, it seems they could be breached for failing to meet their mutual obligations. According to ACOSS, in the UK stronger sanctions on income support recipients who had a drug dependency resulted in greater disengagement and harmed efforts to address drug dependency. It was also found that the increased use of sanctions was likely to fail in improving employment rates of people with drug dependency in the absence of intensive support and demand-side interventions. Labor opposed the measures when they were introduced as part of the welfare reform bill in 2017. Labor is open to considering genuine attempts to help people into treatment. We don't believe that income support should be used to support drug habits. But this determination will adversely affect people with serious illness, pushing them into serious financial hardship and crime. It will not identify or genuinely help those in need of treatment. We are open to working with the government on genuine attempts to help people battling addiction, but not blatant attacks on the most vulnerable in our community with no basis in evidence. I want to just deal with that issue of people with drug or alcohol dependency. Unless you have seen a family member or you have drug or alcohol dependency yourself, it's really difficult to make these judgements. It's really difficult for someone who has never experienced this—and many in the government wouldn't have experienced it—to make these judgements. I know that the argument and the position the government continually takes is that the best form of welfare is a job. I think the public are over this nonsense and these slogans being used to attack some of the most disadvantaged people in our community—some of the people who need help more than most in our community. If there were a job for everybody on social security payments, it would be fantastic. But there is not. There are not jobs for everyone who seeks a job. It is made even more difficult if you have a health issue or if you have alcohol or drug addiction. As someone who is an alcoholic—someone who hasn't taken any alcohol for about 40 years—I know how difficult it is. I don't understand how simply having these positions adopted that say that someone with an alcohol problem should be forced into a position of having no income can work in any practical sense. I certainly don't understand how forcing someone into abject poverty helps their drug or alcohol addiction. I was lucky. I had a family that supported me. I had a wife who did everything she possibly could to help me. I maintained my job during the period of alcohol addiction. If you don't have that, this proposition only makes matters worse for people. It is just crazy to actually propose this when you're dealing with someone with an addiction problem. As I said, I've got some experience of being addicted to alcohol. I was really lucky. Many people are not so lucky as to be in the position I was in and get the support I needed at the time to stop drinking alcohol. But I'll always be an alcoholic; I can't drink alcohol. I just don't get it that anyone who has any basic understanding of this problem of both alcohol and drug addiction could put them in poverty, making them more vulnerable and more determined to actually keep drinking because they have no other options. It is just not a reasonable approach. On that basis, not only do I support this disallowance from a personal perspective; certainly, the opposition support this on the basis of listening to people, understanding the issues and actually wanting to do something about it. The other aspect of this disallowance motion is the issue of job search. Labor opposed many aspects of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act that came into force this year, including the targeted compliance framework to which this measure relates. Labor moved an amendment to retain waivers and discretion for employment service providers when assessing the merits of financial penalties but opposed the targeted compliance framework measure when the amendment wasn't successful. Community sector stakeholders said the changes introduced as part of the targeted compliance framework were 'punitive' and could 'increase the risks of people becoming homeless and have negative outcomes for their physical and mental health, self-esteem, relationships and engagement with the labour market'. The targeted compliance framework requires that individuals looking for work must meet a number of mutual obligation requirements or they may have their welfare payments suspended, reduced or cancelled. One circumstance that might see someone commit a mutual obligation failure is where the employment service provider is not satisfied that the individual looking for work has undertaken adequate job search efforts in accordance with their employment pathway plan. This determination is unnecessarily prescriptive for both the individual looking for work and also the employment service provider. It imposes additional compliance burdens without any clear benefit to people seeking work. Employment service providers should work with unemployed people to help them apply for the right job for their situation. A one-size-fits-all approach is unnecessary and is not the proper way to help people find secure, decent work. One of my areas of shadow portfolio responsibility is homelessness. I talk to homeless people on a regular basis and I talk to the agencies who are trying to help people in homeless situations. They say that stability is how you fix these issues. Putting a roof over someone's head, dealing with health problems, dealing with alcohol addiction problems, dealing with drug problems and having wraparound support for people are how you deal with these issues. It just beggars belief that this government is still in the last century in its thinking in relation to these issues. Penal provisions against people with addiction, penal provisions against people that need help and support and penal provisions against those that will only get worse if you penalise them are not modern approaches to dealing with these issues. This government is so out of touch in so many areas. This, in my view, epitomises how out of touch this government is with the approaches that will help people that have got drug addiction, people that are homeless and people that are on social security. People on social security should not be used as a political battering ram by this government. The government should be supporting our fellow Australians who are doing it tough and our fellow Australians who need support with their drug addiction, their alcohol addiction and their health problems. Going down this path is last century's thinking. It's about time this government actually came into the modern day with its thinking on these issues and stopped looking at every person on social security as someone to give a kick in the head to. That's what this government is doing. The sooner we have an election and the sooner we get a government that can actually understand the health issues, the addiction issues, the housing issues and the unemployment issues and how we deal with them in a sophisticated way, the better. This rabble of a government, whose own Prime Minister described them as 'muppets' are showing how they are muppets in relation to this. They are like M&Ms—one minute they are muppets the next minute they are mad. It is just awful how this government tries to deal with social security issues and vulnerable people in this country. It is about time it stopped. It's about time the government listened to the experts and the people that are helping people with drug addiction and alcohol addiction and have not only a compassionate approach but also an effective approach on this. Their approach is not effective; it will only make matters worse. Labor supports these disallowances. 19:45 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia These three instruments are vital to ensuring that there's consistency, clarity and certainty for jobseekers and providers alike. In relation to the Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018, the government will not support the disallowance of this instrument. If a jobseeker does not meet one of their requirements while receiving unemployment payments, they may face a financial penalty unless they have a reasonable excuse for that failure. If the reasonable excuse instrument were disallowed, decision-makers could still decide that a person had a reasonable excuse for a particular failure—so that that person did not face financial penalties for reasons outside of their control—but would not be required to consider factors currently specified in the instrument, such as any illness or impairment of the person, their language ability, their housing instability et cetera. This could lead to an inconsistent application of the reasonable excuse provision, which could disadvantage some jobseekers relative to others. Likewise, the instrument specifies the circumstances in which drug or alcohol dependence must not be considered a reasonable excuse. The government will not be supporting the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payments) Determination 2018. The instrument makes a number of technical changes, including the repeal of the instrument, which applied under the prior compliance framework and which will no longer have effect for jobseekers due to legislative changes. This instrument forms part of the government's commitment to maintaining the currency of our legislation and legislative instruments by removing redundant regulation. Finally, the government will not support the motion to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Job Search Efforts) Determination 2018 instrument. If the instrument were disallowed, there would still be a requirement to apply mutual obligation failures for failing to undertake adequate job search efforts; however, there would be no instrument to guide decision-makers in determining what constituted an inadequate job search, and there would be no requirement for decision-makers to consider the range of factors specified in the instrument. This would reduce clarity and protections for jobseekers, and potentially subject them to inconsistent assessment of whether they have undertaken adequate job searches. Further to this, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2018 requires the secretary to make an instrument to guide decision-makers in making this determination. 19:47 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia In winding up the debate on this disallowance motion, I continue to be gobsmacked that the government does not get the fact that treating people who have a drug or alcohol addiction in a punitive manner does not help the situation. The government does not get that this is a health issue and it needs to be addressed as a health issue. Under the approach that's being driven by the two instruments that relate to reasonable excuse, we will see people drop out of the system. They will drop out of the system, they will not have income support, and that will make their situation even more tenuous. If they aren't already homeless, it'll lead absolutely to homelessness and potentially to interaction with the justice system—because this government does not get that this is a health issue. These measures will make our already punitive income support system even more punitive. In terms of job searches, I completely disagree with the government that this will lead to more consistency. In fact, it will make it harsher and, as I articulated in my first contribution, it could lead to even further inconsistency—and it's being applied to a system that already has so many massive problems with it. I've already articulated the concerns I have about putting even more pressure on employment consultants and caseworkers working for jobactive providers. With their lack of qualifications and the heavy case loads they are bearing, the high turnover or churn of staff in these services points to problems in terms of what they have to deal with through this punitive compliance system. I'm expecting that churn will probably get higher, once we start seeing the further implementation of the targeted compliance framework. The job of these people is supposed to be to support jobseekers and those who are unemployed. Their role is to support these people and to help them find work. In fact, they now have to apply this punitive approach and be responsible for making decisions around penalising people. This makes their job even harder. This system needs reform; it absolutely needs reform. We don't need a system, with these sorts of instruments, that makes it harder for jobseekers to find work and harder for them to comply. A number of times now I've heard of the situation where somebody has actually had to leave their part-time work to go to an appointment with their jobseeker provider to help them find work. So they've actually had to miss out on work. Another situation was where a young mother had to stop studying to comply with this system. She had to drop some of her course units in order to comply with the requirement for meetings with her provider. This system is failing. These delegated instruments make an already failing system worse. I ask the Senate to support these disallowances so that we can at least not make the system worse. Then I urge the Senate to look at what comes out of the jobactive Senate inquiry, when that inquiry presents its report in the future, to look at how we can get real reform in a system that is not punitive, that is supportive, that helps people trying to find work, and that recognises that this country has structural unemployment and that there simply are not the jobs there for people to apply for. Instead of penalising those who are unlucky enough not to be able to find work, we should be supporting them to find work and offering meaningful training opportunities. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard people talk about the inadequacy of the training that people get through the jobactive process. It's time we reform the system. There is absolutely no doubt that it needs change, but not—this is a disallowance motion—through the sorts of changes that these delegated instruments have brought in. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

[The Senate divided. [19:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

28 AYES Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Waters, LJ Watt, M (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Cormann, M Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 8 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Sinodinos, A Brown, CL Seselja, Z Collins, JMA Paterson, J Marshall, GM Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Martin, S.L Urquhart, AE Birmingham, SJ Wong, P Fawcett, D

Question negatived.

20:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

Question negatived.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 91 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 20:03 The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I put the next matter, I would like to acknowledge the presence of former Senator Ludlam, who has joined us in the chamber this evening. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 92 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018, Social Security (Administration) (Job Search Efforts) Determination 2018, Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018 92 Disallowance 92 20:03 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is now that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, be agreed to. Question negatived. NOTICES 92 NOTICES Presentation 92 20:03 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001, and for related purposes. Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018. DOCUMENTS 92 DOCUMENTS Department of Home Affairs 92 Consideration 92 20:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As I was saying, we've got a situation in offshore detention on Manus Island and Nauru that is having absolutely the most horrendous consequences for innocent human beings and, in fact, has created a humanitarian calamity. Part of my job as the Australian Greens' immigration spokesperson is to bear witness to what Australia is doing on Manus Island and Nauru. It's well and truly on the record that I've travelled to Manus Island many times and have seen what is happening over there. In fact, I was there at the time the Australian government ordered the withdrawal of drinking water, electricity, food and medication to over 600 men in the Lombrum detention centre. Recently, I applied for a visa to visit Nauru. That, as the record shows, was rejected by the Nauruan government. When it was rejected, I had an email from the Nauruan consulate in Brisbane forwarded to me that said: 'The senator's request to visit Nauru does not have the support of the Australian DFAT office. Therefore, Nauru government is unable to support the senator's visa request at this time.' We need an explanation from the Australian government as to exactly what role the Australian government played in having my visa denied by the Nauruan government. It is there in black and white: the Nauruan government said that they are unable to support my request for a visa because it does not have the support of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That's in black and white. Remember, these are Australia's detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. They are funded by Australian government money—Australian taxpayers' money. The contracts are signed by the Department of Home Affairs. It's the Australian government that is responsible for everything that happens on Manus Island and Nauru—the rapes, the sexual assaults of children, the armed assaults from the Papua New Guinea navy, the humanitarian calamity that is offshore detention, and children in a catatonic state withdrawing from life. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, time has expired. Senator McKIM JKM I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 92 DOCUMENTS Consideration 92 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 93 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Veterans 93 20:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Chester, I table a ministerial statement on veterans and their families. COMMITTEES 93 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century 93 Membership 93 20:10 The PRESIDENT I0Q I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee. 20:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move: That senators be appointed to a committee as follows: Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Brown, Cameron, Carr, Chisholm, Collins, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Keneally, Ketter, Kitching, Lines, Marshall, McAllister, McCarthy, Moore, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Singh, Sterle, Urquhart, Watt and Wong Question agreed to. BILLS 93 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 93

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018

First Reading 93 20:10 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It gives me great pleasure to move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 93 20:11 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Bill reforms GST payments to the States and Territories (States) by providing a fairer and more sustainable way of distributing GST. It is a plan that leaves all States and Territories better off. The Commonwealth makes significant payments to the States and Territories. The GST comprises half or well over half of these payments for most States and Territories. The good news for States and Territories, is that since 2000 when then Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello introduced the GST the revenue pool has more than doubled. It is expected to grow anther 65 per cent over the next decade. However, the system has not been working for everyone. The integrity of the GST was being threatened with Western Australia's share falling to 30 cents in the dollar. This compares to Victoria and New South Wales getting more than 90 cents in the dollar and the smaller States higher rates again. The situation was so ridiculous that Tasmania and the Northern Territory both received more GST revenue than Western Australia, despite having populations that were one fifth and one tenth, respectively, of the size of Western Australia's population. The current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation was effective when the Australian economy and States' and Territories' economies were relatively stable. It meant that the GST was distributed so that all States and Territories had their fiscal capacities equalised to be the same as the broad-based, stable economies of either NSW or Victoria. However, the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation was not designed to deal with significant economic shocks. The mining boom was an unprecedented shock to the Australian economy. It exposed weaknesses in the system that could not have been foreseen when the GST was introduced. So, after the economic shocks of the past decade, it is time to make improvements to the system. The way that GST is distributed in Australia has not been updated since it was introduced in 2000. The Coalition Government asked the Productivity Commission to reassess how the GST is distributed. The Productivity Commission found that although the current GST distribution system functions well and achieves high levels of fiscal equity, it can deliver perverse outcomes when there is a significant shock to the economy, such as a mining boom. The Government's Interim Response released on 5 July 2018 proposed reforms to the way the GST is distributed that will leave all States better off and protect the integrity of the system. GST will continue to be distributed using the 'fair-go' principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE). In essence, States should have sufficient resources (fiscal capacity) so that all Australians can have access to vital government services no matter where they live across the country. The Government's plan will: First, create a new equalisation benchmark the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria (whichever is higher). All States will transition to this new equalisation standard over six years from 2021‑22 to 2026-27. Second, introduce a permanent in-system relativity floor of 0.7 from 2022-23, increasing to 0.75 from 2024-25. Third, permanently boost the GST pool of funds available for distribution to the States and Territories, by providing direct Commonwealth cash injections each year from 2021-22 onwards. These are in addition to GST collections. The Bill will enable an initial boost of $600 million in 2021-22 and a further $250 million boost in 2024-25, indexed each year to grow in line with the GST. Fourth, during the transition period from 2021-22 to 2026-27, States and Territories will be guaranteed the better of the old system or the new system. This means at the end of the transition period, each State and Territory will have received the better of the cumulative total over the entire period of either the old system or the updated system. Payments will be verified annually by the Commonwealth Grants Commission over the transition period and any adjustments made accordingly. Fifth, to be completed by December 2026, the Productivity Commission will conduct an inquiry to assess whether the updated system is working efficiently, effectively and operating as intended. Sixth, separately provide short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory to keep their relativities above 0.7 and 4.66 respectively from 2019-20 to 2021-22. At the end of this period in 2026-27, Australia will have a horizontal fiscal equalisation system that protects against economic shocks and provides a more stable source of revenue for all States and Territories. The horizontal fiscal equalisation 'fair-go' principle has been an important part of our federal financial relations system since federation. The Government's horizontal fiscal equalisation reforms – implemented in this Bill – continue to uphold this principle, so that all Australians can have access to vital government services no matter where they live across this diverse country. Debate adjourned. Senator CORMANN HDA I move: That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. I table letters from the state treasurers in response to a request by Labor senators in the relevant additional comments in the Senate inquiry report on this bill. Question agreed to. Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 94

Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018

First Reading 94 20:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 95 20:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill will enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to support state and territory police to respond to domestic security incidents, including terrorism. The Bill implements the key recommendations of the Review of Defence Support to National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements, announced by the Prime Minister on 17 July last year. In broad terms, the Bill will amend Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903 by streamlining the legal procedures for the call out of the ADF and enhancing its ability to protect states, territories, and Commonwealth interests, onshore and offshore, against terrorism. These amendments complement practical measures being rolled out by the Government to enhance Defence's support to national counter-terrorism arrangements. The Bill represents the most significant reform of the ADF call-out powers since Part IIIAAA was enacted in 2000 in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics. The threat we face today is greater and more complex than that which we faced when these laws were introduced almost 20 years ago. The Government continuously monitors changes in the security environment and reviews legislative, policy and operational arrangements to ensure we remain ahead of the challenges we face. Nationally, we must have the best laws and capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks, whether they are simple, complex, brief or protracted. Despite the robust arrangements we have in place, we must remain agile and flexible in the face of the evolving terrorist threat. Today, it is most likely that domestic terrorist attacks will be carried out by individuals or small groups inspired by violent ideology using simple methodologies—knives, guns, cars—and could be over in minutes. These types of attacks require immediate response to save lives and to neutralise the threat. Australia's law enforcement, security agencies, and military, are among the best in the world. Australia has a broad continuum of operational response to terrorist attacks spanning from general duties police to the specialist members of the ADF. The police and other emergency services are, and will remain, our first responders to such terrible events. It is the immediate actions of these first responders that can have the greatest impact in terms of saving lives and neutralising any threat. Each state and territory police force has specially trained personnel who have expert capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks, but they sometimes need additional support to respond most effectively. While the ADF's primary counter‑terrorism role is offshore, the ADF has personnel, resources, and specialist skills that can assist our emergency services to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. This support includes specialist capabilities such as tactical assault forces, and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response and recovery. For this reason, it is essential that Defence is able to contribute effectively to domestic counter-terrorism efforts in this environment. The legislation This Bill will re-enact Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act, with modernised provisions that are better adapted to the current threat environment. There are a number of key underlying principles that inform the operation of the amended call out provisions. The ADF should only be called out to assist civilian authorities. If the ADF is called out, civilian authorities remain paramount, but ADF members remain under military command. When called out, ADF members can only use force that is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. ADF personnel remain subject to the law and are accountable for their actions. I will now go through the key changes in the Bill. Lowering the threshold for call out One of the key purposes of the Bill is to make it easier for states and territories to request ADF support. The current legislative threshold prevents the ADF being called out until states and territories 'are not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves or Commonwealth interests against domestic violence'. This is not optimal for facilitating ADF involvement to assist a police response to a terrorist incident. For instance, it could limit the ADF's ability to provide relevant specialist or niche capabilities to support a state or territory in instances where the jurisdiction's capacity to respond has not been exhausted. These amendments will require that, in deciding whether to call out the ADF, Commonwealth authorising ministers consider the nature of the violence and whether ADF support would be likely to enhance the state or territory's ability to protect itself or Commonwealth interests. Importantly, these factors would not limit the range of matters that authorising Ministers could take into account. These amendments will permit states and territories to request that the Commonwealth call out the ADF in a wider range of circumstances. The amendments will make the threshold more flexible and responsive to the needs of states and territories while recognising and respecting each state and territory's different requirements. This threshold also respects the position of states and territories as first responders, by requiring an assessment of the potential benefit of ADF assistance. The amendments to the threshold do not mean that the ADF will or should be called out to respond to every threat. However, they will give greater flexibility to respond to the wide range of threats that may arise and the range of response capabilities of every jurisdiction. Expanding contingent call out Fig. 1 Recent terrorist attacks in cities such as Paris and London have prompted a reassessment of the scope of the ability to pre-authorise call out of the ADF. This is known as contingent call out. Contingent call out allows Commonwealth ministers to pre-authorise the ADF to respond if specified circumstances arise. This removes any potential delay in seeking ministerial authorisation to act once an incident has taken place, and enables the ADF to already be on the scene, ready to assist the police response. Contingent call out is currently limited only to aviation and the protection of Commonwealth interests. These amendments will extend contingent call out to be available to protect state and territory interests, whether in the land, air, or maritime domain. In light of the current threat environment where terrorist incidents can be over in a matter of minutes, these amendments provide additional options when planning for anticipated terrorist threats. Multi - jurisdictional call out Terrorist threats can be highly mobile and can occur in multiple locations simultaneously. It is conceivable that a threat may arise in one jurisdiction and rapidly move to another. It is critical that legislative arrangements do not hinder an ADF response in this context. These amendments will enhance the ability of the ADF to respond to incidents which cross state or territory borders by allowing for call out orders to authorise the ADF to operate in multiple jurisdictions, as well as the offshore area. Increased Consultation with State and Territory Police The Bill recognises the importance of the ADF working cooperatively alongside first responders, by increasing the requirements to consult with state and territory police. As a matter of course, the ADF would work closely alongside state and territory first responders if called out. Under these amendments, the ADF will be required to consult with every state and territory affected by a call out order, to the extent possible in the circumstances. The amendments also require that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the ADF be utilised only in accordance with the written requests of the police force of the jurisdiction in which the ADF is operating. Simplify, Expand and Clarify ADF Powers Under the current legislative framework the powers of the ADF are spread across multiple divisions, and differ depending on whether the powers are being exercised onshore or offshore. This has the potential to create confusion about which powers apply at a given time. The Bill clarifies the powers that ADF members may exercise by organising the ADF's powers into three distinct divisions. These new divisions will each apply to both the onshore and offshore areas to facilitate the ADF's ability to respond to multi-jurisdictional incidents and to streamline the legislation. The Bill expands the powers to prevent, put an end to, and protect people from acts of violence to also cover threats to a person's life or safety, or to public health or public safety. This will make clear that the ADF can act in relation to generalised threats which may not be directed toward any specific person, but towards the community in general. The amendments will also simplify, expand and clarify the powers of the ADF to search and seize, and to control movement during an incident. For instance, the search powers currently available in specified areas focus predominantly on 'dangerous things'. The amendments will allow the ADF to also search for people who pose a threat to a person's life, health or safety or public health or public safety. These amendments have been carefully calibrated to ensure an appropriate balance between rights and powers in an emergency situation. General Security Area and Designated Area Harmonisation The existing legislation also sets out a complicated scheme relating to onshore and offshore General Security Areas and Designated Areas, with different powers available in each area. Operationally, this requires ADF members to be continually aware of the respective area boundaries to ensure that they exercise the powers available within that area. This may prove challenging in a time-compressed, dynamic environment with a rapidly changing threat. To reduce complexity and uncertainty, the amendments will remove the distinction between the General Security Area and Designated Area provisions and allow for the complete suite of powers to be exercised within a single Specified Area, subject to appropriate safeguards. Inclusion of the Minister for Home Affairs as a named ' alternative ' Minister Under the existing legislation, in a sudden and extraordinary emergency, an expedited call out order can be made by the Prime Minister acting alone, or if the Prime Minister is unable to be contacted, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General together. If only one of the authorising Ministers can be contacted, an expedited call out order can be made by either the Minister for Defence or the Attorney-General, together with an alternative Minister, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Treasurer. In recognition of the key role that the Minister for Home Affairs plays in counter-terrorism coordination, and as a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, the amendments will add the Minister for Home Affairs as a named alternative minister for the purposes of expedited call out. Conclusion The measures in this Bill will ensure that Defence's specialist counter‑terrorism capabilities are readily available to states and territories if and when they are needed. Significantly, the amendments will enable the ADF to respond to a threat spanning jurisdictional borders and be pre-authorised to respond to threats on land, at sea or in the air. This will ensure the most rapid response possible, which is critical given the current threat environment. This Bill represents a substantial improvement to the Commonwealth's ability to support national counter-terrorism arrangements and to save lives when a domestic terrorist threat arises Debate adjourned. Ordered that the re su mption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 97

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

First Reading 97 20:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia 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 97 20:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and 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— ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND AND SEA FUTURE FUND BILL 2018 This Bill is designed to grow what has come to be known as the Indigenous Estate. It builds on a movement that began in the 1960s, when Australian governments began returning country to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who had been dispossessed of the lands they had owned and cared for since time immemorial. The Mabo (No 2) decision and the cases that followed, were significant in their recognition of the pre-existing rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to country. Rights that endured where claimants could demonstrate a continued connection to country. For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians the requirement to demonstrate a continued connection to country placed the restitution that native title offered, out of reach. Historical policies of dispossession and dispersal has denied many of the ability to continue their connection to country. Others have not been able to makes claims where native title has been extinguished. In recognition of these inequities, the Indigenous Land Corporation was created to assist those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were unable to meet the threshold of native title. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, as it was then known, was established as an endowment fund that would provide a sustainable source of funding for the Indigenous Land Corporation to acquire land for, and manage land on behalf of, these Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. As noted in the preamble of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, under which the Indigenous Land Corporation is established, the Government was guided by a commitment to address the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians of their lands, which occurred "largely without compensation". It should be a matter of real pride that the collective efforts of successive, and different layers of, Australian governments have now resulted in an estimated 40 per cent of the Australian land mass being subject to a recognised Indigenous interest. Grounded within this history, the reforms proposed by the Government and co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the country, reaffirm and build upon the pledge in the preamble to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, to develop policies that will "overcome disadvantages of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders to facilitate the enjoyment of their culture… in a manner that is consistent with the aims of self-management and self-sufficiency". The fund, now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account, is contained in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. The purpose of the Land Account is to provide a sustainable source of funding for the Indigenous Land Corporation to enable it to acquire and manage land for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people and thereby grow the Indigenous Estate. However, restrictions on investments and rules around additional payments under current arrangements mean that the Land Account is not financially sustainable. The Land Account is shrinking in real terms because its mandate does not match its purpose – which is to fund the Indigenous Land Corporation's land acquisition program. The Land Account cannot continue to be plagued by poor returns, the opportunity cost for the Indigenous Estate is estimated by the Indigenous Land Corporation's Chair, Mr Edward Fry, to be up to $1 billion to-date. This is why we are acting now. This legislation will enhance the ability of the Commonwealth to put the Indigenous Land Corporation on a sustainable footing so it can continue to acquire land and, through the Government's related Bills, fresh and sea water country for the Indigenous Estate. Under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, the Land Account is required to make annual payments of $45 million (CPI-indexed and equated to over $53 million in 2018) to the Indigenous Land Corporation. However, the Land Account is currently restricted to cash or cash-like investments which have failed to reach the necessary target rate of return in each of the last five financial years. Independent advice suggests that this trend is set to continue given the prevailing investment environment. Exacerbating this, additional payments are currently made automatically if the actual capital value of the Land Account exceeds a CPI‑indexed target, with any excess funds paid to the Indigenous Land Corporation. These payments are made regardless of investment performance and prevent the accumulation of funds in good years, and guarantee payments in bad years. These arrangements make it all but impossible for the Land Account to generate the returns needed to sustain annual payments to the Indigenous Land Corporation over the long term. The Land Account's capital base has been decreasing in recent years, bringing into doubt the Indigenous Land Corporation's ability to perform its functions and continue supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities to grow the Indigenous Estate. From July to September 2017, the Indigenous Land Corporation held 16 independently facilitated consultations in 11 locations across Australia, involving over 70 Indigenous organisations. These consultations sought input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians on how the Land Account should be managed in the future. An overwhelming majority of participants strongly supported changes to improve the sustainability of the Land Account, to transfer investment responsibility to the Future Fund Board of Guardians, and to allow the investment of the Land Account's funds in a broader range of investment products. The Government has listened to these stakeholders, and has taken these views into account in designing the proposed changes. This Bill now seeks to give effect to the clearly stated views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the country. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 establishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. This new Fund will replace the Land Account, and will enhance the ability of the Commonwealth to provide for the long-term financial sustainability of the Indigenous Land Corporation by transferring the management of its funding source to the Future Fund. The Future Fund was established in 2006 and is Australia's sovereign wealth fund. It has proven to be one of the most visionary Government initiatives, significantly strengthening Australia's long-term financial position. It is fitting that the manager of the nation's sovereign wealth fund – the Future Fund Board of Guardians – should manage and grow the over $2 billion endowment fund that is held and managed on behalf of future generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians by providing a source of funding to the Indigenous Land Corporation over the long-term. The Government's proposed legislation will allow the funds to be put into the same range of investment products as other funds managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. By transferring its management to the Future Fund the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund can, with assurance, seek higher returns through investment in higher risk products. Dealing with an increased range of investments products and the option to take on more risk requires a specialist investment manager. The Future Fund Board of Guardians, a trusted and proven investor of public money, will manage those investments. The investment mandate for the Fund will be set by the Finance Minister and the Treasurer, as the responsible Ministers, in consultation with the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The Indigenous Affairs Minister will in turn consult with the Indigenous Land Corporation Board prior to responding to the responsible Ministers. This consultation provides an important opportunity for the interests of the Indigenous Land Corporation to be considered within the responsible Ministers' decision-making process. The purpose of the investment mandate is to provide a mechanism for the Government to provide strategic guidance to the Future Fund Board of Guardians on its expectations for the investment of the Fund, whilst still preserving the independence of the Future Fund Board of Guardians. The mandate will be set in a manner consistent with Commonwealth objectives for the Land Account and with reasonable but not excessive risk. This risk balanced approach will be consistent with the arrangements for other funds currently managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians – such as the Future Fund, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, the Medical Research Future Fund, the Building Australia Fund, and the Education Investment Fund. The Government's proposed legislation will preserve the arrangements for annual payments and alter the arrangements for additional payments. The Government proposes that additional payments be made by the Finance Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, having considered advice from the Future Fund Board of Guardians and any other matters that those Ministers consider relevant. This safeguard obliges the Ministers to consider the impact an additional payment would have on the financial sustainability of the new Fund, before making any decisions. One of the Bill's guiding principles is to enhance the ability of the new Fund to continue making its annual payments and growing the corpus of the Fund for the benefit of future generations. This safeguard provision has been designed with the intention that additional payments will be made only where they will not negatively impact on the viability of the annual payments. In its report published following an inquiry into this Bill, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee noted it was "confident that future additional payments will only occur in circumstances where the sustainability of the Fund is not compromised". The Committee also expressed satisfaction with the reporting arrangements surrounding the new Fund. As required under the Future Fund Act 2006, the Future Fund Board of Guardians will table an Annual Report in the Parliament providing extensive information on the performance of the new Fund. This will include publication of audited financial statements. The Future Fund Board of Guardians also publishes a report each quarter on the performance outcomes of the Funds under its management. All of these reporting arrangements are consistent with arrangements for other funds currently managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. Nonetheless, the Bill has provisions that ensure that the Indigenous Land Corporation Board has the opportunity to discuss the performance of the new Fund with Commonwealth officials, if it so desires and following the publishing of the quarterly updates. The Bill also includes a provision allowing the Finance Minister to request that the Future Fund Board of Guardians prepare reports or give information. The Finance Minister may give these reports or information to a relevant Minister if appropriate. Nothing in the Bill prevents the Minister for Indigenous Affairs from sharing this information where it is appropriate to do so. These reforms are crucial for the Indigenous Land Corporation to continue its historically significant purpose of assisting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to achieve their economic, environmental, social and cultural goals into the future. By taking these steps to put the Indigenous Land Corporation's funding arrangements on a sustainable footing, the Government is giving practical effect to its commitment to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, their communities and organisations to support their aspirations. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND AND SEA FUTURE FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2018 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 facilitates the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund through amendments to: the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Act 2013; the Future Fund Act 2006; the Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015; and the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. The bill also includes minor technical amendments contingent on the enactment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Act 2018, which relate to the re-naming of the Indigenous Land Corporation as the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, reflecting the entity's wider remit effected by that Act. Taken together, the consequential amendments in this bill would enable the effective operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Act at commencement. Debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018, Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018, Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018, Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018, National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018, Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 100

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

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018

Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 100 20:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move 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 100 20:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018 and 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— ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AMENDMENT (INDIGENOUS LAND CORPORATION) BILL 2018 This Bill represents a significant step forward in Australia's land rights journey. The Indigenous Land Corporation was established as part of the Government's response to the High Court's decision in Mabo (No 2). In recognition that many Indigenous people would be unable to benefit under the Native Title Act 1993, the Indigenous Land Corporation was established to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to acquire land and to manage Indigenous‑held land so as to provide economic, environmental, social or cultural benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. "Land" is not defined within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. On a plain language interpretation, this means the Indigenous Land Corporation cannot support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to conduct activities in freshwater and sea country. For example, it cannot support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to: strengthen their connection with culture and community through activities in freshwater and sea country; manage freshwater and sea country to keep culturally significant plants and animals healthy; or establish fishing businesses. This is inconsistent with the understanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have of country. This is also inconsistent with developments in case law recognising that native title rights can extend to freshwater and sea country. In some cases those rights include rights to take and use water for a variety of purposes, and to take resources from certain waters. The law now acknowledges that, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, land and water are inseparable parts of country. It is now time for the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation to reflect this. These reforms follow extensive consultation with Indigenous stakeholders. A clear majority of stakeholders supported changes to expand the remit of the Indigenous Land Corporation to include freshwater and sea country. The Government has listened and is now enabling the Indigenous Land Corporation to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to care for, manage and benefit from freshwater and sea country. The Bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to give the Indigenous Land Corporation functions in relation to 'water-related rights'. These additional functions are consistent with the Indigenous Land Corporation's functions in relation to land, and include: a. the acquisition of water-related rights and divestment to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Corporations; b. the provision of assistance (grants, loans or loan guarantees) to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Corporations to acquire water-related rights; c. the carrying on of management activities in relation to 'indigenous waters' (an expression defined in the Bill) and water, or waters, in which the Indigenous Land Corporation has water‑related rights; and d. the provision of assistance (grants, loans or loan guarantees) for the purpose of carrying on management activities in relation to indigenous waters. The Bill also renames the Indigenous Land Corporation the "Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation" to reflect the expansion of its remit to include water. Expanding the remit will enable the Indigenous Land Corporation to reflect the understanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have of country. It will also enable the Indigenous Land Corporation to support the full range of opportunities for Indigenous economic development in sectors such as fisheries, agriculture and tourism. These reforms represent a significant step in Australia's land rights journey. By expanding the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation to rights in relation to water, this Government is realising its commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL 2018 It is important that Australia's aviation security framework remains effective and fit for purpose in an evolving and increasingly complex security environment. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018 will ensure that Australia's aviation security framework remains responsive to changes in the security environment, while reducing the regulatory burden on smaller aviation industry participants. Aviation is an enduring and attractive target for terrorists. This was evidenced in July 2017 by the disrupted attack in Sydney. The attack marked a significant shift in the threat and risk to Australian aviation, demonstrating a level of sophistication not seen before in Australia. To remain ahead of the evolving threat, the Department of Home Affairs is working with industry to introduce a range of new security measures, including sophisticated new security screening technology at major and regional airports, and enhanced powers for the Australian Federal Police. We must, however, balance aviation security needs with maintaining a viable aviation sector, particularly in regional Australia. Not all industry participants face the same level of risk. The Department uses intelligence and characteristics specific to each aviation operator to assess risk. This shows, not unexpectedly, that larger aircraft and major airports are more attractive targets. This Bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. It will introduce measures to allow the Secretary of Home Affairs, or their delegate, to give a 'model' transport security program, or TSP, to a lower risk aviation operator. An industry participant is required under the Act to have a TSP that sets out the security measures and procedures that they have in place to meet their regulatory obligations. The Department of Home Affairs assesses all TSPs, including minor amendments, and undertakes rigorous compliance activities to ensure industry participants meet their security obligations. Currently, the Act requires all industry participants to maintain a comprehensive and bespoke TSP. This is despite the differences in the risk, size, sophistication or complexity of their operations. This places a disproportionately high administrative burden on some lower risk industry participants, such as smaller, regional airports. These amendments will allow an industry participant to be given a Secretary-issued TSP if assessed as lower risk, and where the administrative burden of preparing a bespoke TSP is not proportionate to the security outcomes. A Secretary-issued TSP will enable lower risk industry participants to direct resources to maintaining security measures rather than towards preparing documents for Government. If an industry participant's risk profile changes, for example, they start operating larger aircraft, or experience significant increase in passenger numbers, the Department will assess their risk profile and adjust their security requirements accordingly. The measures provided for in this Bill will uphold security outcomes while ensuring security measures and costs are commensurate with risk. I commend the Bill to the Chamber. COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (ONLINE INFRINGEMENT) BILL 2018 Australia's copyright system provides the legal basis for supporting Australia's creativeindustries and ensuring that they are viable and successful. It is an essential mechanism for rewarding the creative efforts of authors, artists and musicians, and the investors that take the risks to bring creative works to the market. Our copyright system balances incentives to create and disseminate new works by allowing fair access and use of these works by Australian consumers and other users for public policy benefits. The Australian Government has made two major updates to this system over the past three years. These updates have given the disability, education and cultural sectors enhanced use of copyright material. Those reforms were long overdue and necessary to enable those organisations to go about their normal functions without harming copyright owners. Now it is time to provide our creators and copyright industries with updated tools to ensure their creative efforts do not go unrewarded. Australian film, television and music is a major success story, and the digital age has created opportunities for consumers to access this content in new and different ways. Streaming of content through providers such as Netflix, Stan and Spotify has opened up new ways of enjoying content. The Government encourages the ongoing development and rollout of these legitimate platforms because they enable Australian creators and investors to be appropriately rewarded for their efforts. But the internet continues to create major challenges for Australia's creative industries Online copyright infringement reduces the livelihood of Australian creators and investors, and foreign-based websites continue to illegally distribute the content of Australian copyright owners. The operators of these sites are often difficult or impossible to find, and are located in countries that do not have strong copyright laws. In 2015, the Government introduced a website blocking scheme in the Copyright Act 1968 to provide a means of addressing large scale copyright infringement by overseas operators. The scheme has been successful. Since it was introduced, a number of sites have been blocked and there has been a reduction in the rate of online copyright infringement by Australian users. Research commissioned by the film industry shows that traffic to blocked sites in the months after blocking dropped by around 50 per cent. That is an encouraging result. But in an environment that is subject to continual change, we need to make sure our regulatory protections are up-to-date and effective. Australia's piracy rate still remains higher than in countries with strong copyright enforcement frameworks, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. There is a still a proportion of Australian users that seek out infringing sites, and there are still pathways for them to get to these sites, including blocked sites. In February this year, the Government reviewed the existing scheme to determine whether it was operating effectively. In general, this assessment found that the scheme is working well, and that blocking arrangements have been implemented by carriage service providers with minimal disruption. However, there are some clear pressure points. First, search engines enable users to discover the existence of blocked websites and provide alternative pathways to get to those sites. Second, the types of online piracy have also become broader, with increased uses of sophisticated online locations, such as 'cyberlockers', that allow mass file-sharing. Third, new pathways to the blocked sites appear after the initial blocking, and these new pathways can't be blocked because they are not part of the original order. Finally, it can be difficult and costly to determine whether an online location is, in fact, located overseas. The Bill directly addresses these concerns. It will allow injunctions to be made against online search engines, who would be required to take reasonable steps to remove search results that refer users to an infringing online location. This will remove links that allow users to discover the existence of websites that may be the subject of an injunction. Some of these appear on the first page of search results, when they should not appear at all. Search engine results can also disclose alternate pathways to blocked websites, which can undermine the effectiveness of blocking orders. The Bill will provide that an injunction may be granted in respect of an online location that has 'the primary purpose or the primary effect' of infringing, or facilitating an infringement, of copyright. This will ensure that some overseas online locations, such as certain 'cyberlockers', may be captured under the scheme. Some cyberlockers are widely used as sites for sharing infringing music and movie files. At the moment, there is doubt about whether these sites have the 'primary purpose' of infringing copyright, or facilitating the infringement of copyright. The Bill will enable sites such as these to be brought within the scheme. The Bill will make clear that the Federal Court has the power to issue responsive and adaptive injunctions, without the need for the copyright owner to go back to the Court. This will give the Court the power to grant injunctions on terms that allow the copyright owner and carriage service provider, by agreement, to apply the injunction to block other pathways that start to provide access to an infringing site. The Bill will also introduce an evidential presumption that will provide that an online location is outside Australia, unless the contrary is proven. None of these measures will impede or affect the capacity for carriage service providers or search engine providers to voluntarily block or remove links to copyright infringing online locations. Indeed, if these voluntary arrangements are effective, injunctions are unlikely to be needed. However, these legislative changes provide an important fallback should industry initiatives prove to be inadequate or ineffective. In closing, the Government is seeking quick passage of this Bill so that Australia's creative industries can take action to protect their rights. These industries have put in place voluntary measures to make content more accessible and cheaper, and run education campaigns so that Australians are aware of the impact of piracy. It is now appropriate for the Parliament to support these efforts by reforming our copyright website blocking scheme to ensure it is fit-for-purpose in a contemporary digital media environment. I commend the Bill. CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS) BILL 2018 This Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. This vital legislation cracks down hard on companies which try to evade their obligations to workers and shift the burden to taxpayers. Corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme places an unfair burden on Australian taxpayers who ultimately bear the costs of employers improperly relying on the scheme. It also creates an unfair commercial advantage over honest competitor businesses which do the right thing by their employees. This Bill will mean we have stronger levers to ensure employers are held accountable for their obligations: stronger penalties for those who do the wrong thing; stronger options to recover entitlements; and stronger powers to deal with directors and companies deliberately evading their obligations. The FEG is an important safety net for Australian workers which protects employment entitlements when workers lose their job due to their employer's insolvency. Whilst the overwhelming majority of companies are doing the right thing, unfortunately, some employers shift employee costs onto the FEG scheme for their own advantage, or just to exploit the scheme. These changes are tightly targeted to deter and punish only those who seek to avoid their employee entitlement obligations and exploit the FEG scheme. This improper use of FEG is contributing to a significant increase in scheme costs. Average annual costs under the scheme have more than tripled from $70.7 million in the four years to 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four years to 30 June 2018. The amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of this Bill strengthen enforcement and recovery options under the Corporations Act to deter and penalise company directors and other persons who engage in, or facilitate, transactions that are aimed at preventing, avoiding or significantly reducing employer liability for employee entitlements in insolvency. The changes in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill include: extending the fault element necessary to contravene the existing criminal offence in Part 5.8A of the Corporations Act to include recklessness; significantly increasing the penalties applicable to contraventions of the criminal offences under Part 5.8A of the Corporations Act; introducing a new civil penalty for entering into a transaction that is likely to avoid, prevent or significantly reduce recoverable employee entitlements, with an objective test based on what a reasonable person in the circumstances would have known about the transaction; and expanding the parties who can commence civil compensation proceedings to include the Australian Taxation Office, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Department of Jobs and Small Business. The amendments in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of this Bill enable the Court to make a contribution order against an entity in a corporate group or closely connected economic relationship with an insolvent company, where: that insolvent company has unpaid employee entitlements; the other entity has unfairly benefited from the work done by the insolvent company's employees; and it would be just and equitable for the Court to make the order. The amendments in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of this Bill strengthen the ability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to disqualify company directors and other officers (either directly or on application to the Court), where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the FEG scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. The reforms are the result of extensive public consultation processes conducted during 2017 and 2018. They have been developed with the Government's insolvent trading safe harbour reforms in mind and are tightly targeted to deter and punish only those who do the wrong thing by workers and taxpayers. They will not affect the overwhelming majority of companies which are doing the right thing. The reforms build on other actions the Government has taken to protect employee entitlements, such as; amending the Fair Work Act to protect vulnerable workers, including: - increasing penalties up to 10 fold for serious contraventions of workplace laws, - strengthening the Fair Work Ombudsman's investigative powers, and - making franchisors and holding companies responsible for breaches of the Fair Work Act in certain circumstances. providing a $20.1 million increase in funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman over four years; establishing the inter-agency Migrant Workers' Taskforce led by Professor Allan Fels AO; introducing legislation to tackle non-payment of the Superannuation Guarantee by targeting employers that fail to meet their superannuation obligations; releasing draft legislation to combat illegal phoenix activities, involving the deliberate avoidance of company debts, including employee entitlements, by company operators and pre-insolvency advisers who facilitate this activity; and legislating that a company must pay its employee entitlements when they fall due, for its directors to rely on the insolvent trading safe harbour. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill and has approved it as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. I am sure all those present will be keen to support the Bill and ensure these important protections for workers and taxpayers come into effect as soon as possible. NATIONAL HOUSING FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018 In the 2017-18 Budget, the Government announced that it would establish the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC), a new independent corporate Commonwealth entity, to operate an affordable housing bond aggregator to provide cheaper and longer-term finance for community housing providers. This was intended to ensure that Australians, particularly vulnerable Australians, have more opportunities to access affordable housing. Prior to the NHFIC Act being passed, the Government and the Opposition worked together and committed to amendments that would ensure that the Board would have the appropriate skills to oversee NHFIC's activities and that after two years a review would be conducted on the operation of the NHFIC Act. This Bill implements this bipartisan commitment by making explicit that the Board of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation must collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills and experience in a relevant field (being banking and finance, law, housing, infrastructure planning and financing, local government, and public policy), and that at least one Board member must have appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in social or affordable housing. The Bill also provides for the statutory review of the operation of the NHFIC Act to occur after the period of two years from the commencement of the Act, rather than three. In addition, the Government is bringing forward planned annual appropriations for the purpose of the affordable housing bond aggregator to allow NHFIC to redraw amounts repaid to the Commonwealth. The amendments ensure that NHFIC is better placed to respond to demands from community housing providers. The amendments also provide certainty over NHFIC's available finance in future years so it can commit to potential loan transactions. To facilitate this, the Bill provides for the creation of a special account for the purposes of the $1 billion line of credit appropriated to the Department of Treasury for the bond aggregator function of NHFIC. Upon the commencement of the Bill, the $150 million already appropriated to the Commonwealth for the purpose of the affordable housing bond aggregator is credited to the special account. The Bill also appropriates the remaining $850 million of the $1 billion line of credit, which is to be credited to the special account over four years from the commencement of the Bill. The amendments fulfil the original intent for the line of credit to be ongoing, by providing for the $1 billion to be reused and by avoiding the lapsing of any undrawn funds three years after appropriation. This Bill will help secure and improve NHFIC who play a key part in the Government's plan to help reduce pressure on housing affordability. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. SHIPPING REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018 The purpose of the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 is to amend the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (the Act) to make minor technical changes necessary for the remaking of the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (the Regulations). The Bill does not alter the policy intent or effect of the Act or the Regulations. Internationally, shipping registration and nationality is addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. Australia is a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Australian Government takes these responsibilities seriously. Shipping registration in Australia is administered under the Shipping Registration Act and the Shipping Registration Regulations. Registration on the Australian General Shipping Register and the Australian International Shipping Register enables such ships to claim and demonstrate Australian nationality when in foreign ports and places those vessels under Australia's sole jurisdiction when they are in international waters. There are currently approximately 12,000 vessels recorded on the Australian General Shipping Register which permits ships to fly the Australian national flag or the Australian Red Ensign. We have a responsibility to the owners and operators of these ships to get shipping registration right. The Shipping Registration Act passed into law in 1981. Since then, it has been reviewed multiple times, along with the Shipping Registration Regulations. The most recent review of the Shipping Registration Act undertaken by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities identified a small number of provisions be amended in accordance with best practice drafting principles before the Regulations can be remade. The Bill makes the following minor technical changes to the Act: enhancing the head of power for regulations where it is unclear; removing the requirement for the Regulations to prescribe forms for shipping registration certificates, instead allowing the AMSA to approve the forms of certificates; and updating wording to reflect modern drafting standards. Currently in some provisions of the Act the head of power needed to give the Regulations authority is either missing or is unclear in its wording. This Bill will correct those uncertainties by clarifying a head of power for those regulations and will also provide a head of power which provides AMSA with the capacity to act as the Authority under the Act and the Regulations. Enabling AMSA to approve the forms of certificates will make it easier for shipping registration certificates to be updated and reduce the regulatory burden on Australian industry and will also provide AMSA with the flexibility to alter the form of a certificate to suit industry needs. This is in contrast to the current situation, where any changes to the form of certificates must be prescribed by regulation and tabled in Parliament. The proposed amendments will preserve the effect of the current regulations but will remove the requirement for forms to be prescribed by Regulation, meeting modern drafting standards and allowing regulatory flexibility. Without these changes, the Regulations would not be remade in accordance with the Clearer Commonwealth Laws principles as advised by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Australian Government is committed to making Commonwealth law clear and easy to understand, and accessible for the community. These reforms are a reflection of that commitment, and will benefit all current and future shipping registration stakeholders. Minor technical changes to the Act are required before the Regulations can be remade. The Regulations are due to sunset on 1 April 2019. If the Regulations are not remade by 1 April 2019, there will be no mechanism by which ship owners can register their vessels in Australia, or through which transfer of ownership and registration could occur. Therefore it is imperative that this Bill be passed in a timely manner. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring Australians can continue to register ships in Australia in a timely manner. These reforms are necessary and appropriate, and will modernise shipping registration legislation making it clearer and easier to understand for stakeholders. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. COMMITTEES 105 COMMITTEES Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 105 Reporting Date 105 20:16 The PRESIDENT I0Q I have received a message from the House of Representatives agreeing to the Senate resolution varying the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, relating to an extension of time for the committee to report. The House of Representatives message read as follows— That the House agrees with the resolution of the Senate, transmitted in message No. 443, extending the time for presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to the second last sitting day of March 2019. BILLS 106 BILLS Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018 106

Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018

Assent 106 Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018 106

Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018

Report from Committee 106 20:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria On behalf of the chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Senator Paterson, I present the report of the committee on the Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. MOTIONS 106 MOTIONS Child Sexual Abuse 106 20:18 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I acknowledge the leadership shown by the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when she announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in November 2012. It is perhaps her finest legacy. As she said at that time: … too many children have suffered child abuse, but have also seen other adults let them down—they've not only had their trust betrayed by the abuser but other adults who could have acted to assist them have failed to do so. There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil. Julia Gillard was determined that Australia could no longer avert its eyes from evil—and it is evil, with the full import of that word—and the report of the royal commission has fully vindicated the decision she took in 2012. I don't want to name him, but I want to talk about a friend of mine. He went to one of the finest schools in Melbourne. He was a boarder there in the 1970s. He was sexually assaulted. The headmaster and the school supported the teacher, even calling the teacher a hero and someone who always acted in the best interests of the boys. These statements were made just prior to eventually paying my friend $500,000 in compensation, decades later. My friend was sexually assaulted by a teacher when he was 15 years old. When he told the headmaster what had happened, he was told that his claim was outrageous, that he had a vivid imagination, that he needed discipline and that his parents needed to consider whether he should stay at the school. The headmaster said that the teacher was an 'honourable man'. My friend's father was not a particularly physically demonstrative person, but he held my friend tight and he said, 'Son, we love you, we believe you and we'll make this right.' My friend eventually received an apology from the school in June of this year—more than 40 years later. The only reason I know about this is that we were chatting a few weeks ago and he said, 'I'm coming up to Canberra on Monday.' This was the day the apology was given in the other place. I said: 'Oh, great! Are you coming up for work?' He said, 'No, I'm coming up for the apology.' He interpreted my silence quite correctly as my needing further elucidation. He said: 'I want to hear the apology. I think I will find it healing.' We were on the phone, but I just wanted to hug him, to hold him tight, as his father had done so many years before, because I could hear not only the voice of the adult but also the voice of the child. I didn't see him until the day after the apology. He is a lovely man, a very competent man, a very funny, intelligent and engaging man and a well-known man in Melbourne. But for the first time, when I saw him that following day, I saw the child he had been and the unnecessary journey he had had to undertake because of the betrayal, the grief, the anger, the pain and the awful, awful maelstrom of emotion. I am sorry. But my friend, not surprisingly, is a better person than the criminal who abused him. My friend said, in the only interview he has given: My message is stand up, be heard, you're not alone. I will stand with you. Don't be a victim, be a survivor. He said to me the following day that the apology will help him move on, that it is healing. I want to acknowledge some people without whom we would not have had a royal commission. There is the former New South Wales police officer Peter Fox, whose investigation into the cover-up of child sexual abuse triggered the government's decision to appoint the royal commission. He had a great deal of difficulty in bringing his investigation into the light and he should be commended. As a Catholic, I have found the report of the royal commission to be painful reading. It is difficult to reconcile the deep love and compassion that one knows exists within a faith with the evil that has been done to innocence. I sincerely hope—and I'm sure that this hope is shared by all Australian Catholics and all people of faith—that the church will change its attitude and its behaviour. We are starting to see some changes, including in the solemn vow: 'Never again will the safety of the child be placed behind the reputation of the church. No more cover-ups or transferring of people accused of abuse to other places.' The church was the first non-government institution to opt into the National Redress Scheme. The Catholic Church is, however, not alone. I want to acknowledge, for example, Manny Waks, who courageously exposed the sexual abuse that he and others suffered in institutions of the orthodox Jewish community in Melbourne. There have been many others who have helped, from many religious and non-religious institutions and from government and nongovernment. They have exposed a failure to protect children and the fact that perpetrators were instead protected. It is now clear that there has been a systemic failure to protect children in institutional settings of all kinds—state and private, religious and secular—for many decades. That must now stop, for, if it doesn't, we must ask: what kind of society do we want? 'Sorry' is a word and only has power because one understands why one is sorry and the actions that therefore flow from that state of being. There is little point in saying sorry if there is no change. The royal commission has given us a powerful set of recommendations. I thank the commissioners for their diligent carrying out of what must have been, at times, a harrowing duty. We as parliamentarians now also have a duty, and that is to put the recommendations of the royal commission into effect. I note the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to that effect. This parliament—all of us, from all parties and the crossbench—needs to ensure that those commitments are acted upon, whoever is in government—for, if we shirk that duty, we will not be forgiven. 20:24 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this motion on the apology following the royal commission into institutionalised child abuse. The royal commission was many years coming, and it has done incredibly important yet harrowing work to really put the spotlight on the suffering and the pain of so many Australian children in the institutions that were—many of them—meant to care for, look after and love the children who they abused. I want to start by saying that I am sorry. I want to associate my comments and heartfelt apology with those of every other member of this place and the other place—those who have stood and verbalised an apology, those who have acknowledged the moment's silence in the House of Representatives, and those who will do the same here shortly this evening. I'd also like to acknowledge the leadership of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in bringing forward this royal commission. There are many things that I wish Julia Gillard had done while she was Prime Minister, but I think it is fair to say that her strongest legacy will be this royal commission. The spotlight has exposed evil crimes done to children in institutions that are unthinkable, but it is so important to have had it happen. It should have happened many, many years ago. The evil should have been stopped many, many years ago. But, for what we have before us today, I think we need to pay strong and honest tribute to Ms Gillard for showing leadership at the time. I also want to associate myself with the comments of, and pay my respect to the leadership shown by, my own colleague Senator Rachel Siewert in relation to this issue. Senator Siewert has been fighting hard for many, many years in this place for justice and truth for the survivors of institutionalised child abuse, and for those who, for too long, remained voiceless and whose suffering and pain remained a dark secret. I also thought that the contribution in this place earlier today from Senator Kristina Keneally was one that deserves to be acknowledged. She spoke very eloquently and, as a practising Catholic, I think her words carry incredible power. Many of us, as we have acknowledged and reflected upon the much-needed apology to the survivors—and to those who didn't survive—think it is absolutely essential that we acknowledge that the children whose childhoods were stolen had it happen almost in plain sight. Yes, there were dark secrets that the institutions were keeping and that children—abused at the hands of those who were meant to care for them, look after them and love them—were forced to keep. But many, many people knew. And many, many people—adults; people in authority—stayed silent when they should have spoken up. That is what we are truly sorry for. As adults, too many people stayed silent and allowed these children to suffer, to be abused, to be traumatised, to be re-abused and re-traumatised, some night after night, week after week, month after month—and for years. The absolute horror of these acts is only compounded by the cover-up that was associated with them. There have been many accounts that have been used as part of the reporting through this royal commission, and many of us in this place have referred to individual stories that reflect so devastatingly the pain and the suffering that innocent children have had to carry. Tonight I want to focus my short time speaking on this motion on what we have to do to ensure that this never, ever happens again. If we are honest about reforming the way we deal with the issue of institutional child abuse, we must accept that listening to children and believing them has to be first and foremost. We have to accept that those responsible for this evil must be well and truly held to account. There is no excuse—ever—for abusing or hurting a child. There is no confession that can make this abuse less evil. If we are to deal with this issue properly, we must accept that religious institutions themselves must change. Out of the 180-odd recommendations from this report, a number of them stand out in a very stark way. Recommendation 7.4 goes directly to the issue of the confessional. I will read it so that we have it clearly on Hansard: Laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities should not exempt persons in religious ministry from being required to report knowledge or suspicions formed, in whole or in part, on the basis of information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession. No religious institution should ever excuse the abuse and trauma inflicted on children. After years and decades of suffering, generational and intergenerational trauma, it is time that we acknowledge that the confessional is not an excuse for keeping child abuse secret or for protecting the abusers. It is the responsibility of any religious organisation, any person in authority and any adult that when they see evil they do something to stop it. And when they see children suffering, they must do something to stop it. If they suspect that a child is being abused and is suffering emotional or physical abuse or sexual abuse, they must do something about it. Any institution that refuses to comply with laws of mandatory reporting of child abuse, using the excuse of the seal of confession, I believe, should be prosecuted. I believe that using the seal of confession to refuse to report child abuse does not warrant the protection of Australian law or funding from the Australian taxpayer. If the Catholic dioceses around this nation are not prepared to concede to the recommendation of mandatory reporting of child abuse, I don't believe they should be receiving any public money. If you're not prepared to stick to the law that is designed to protect children, you're not playing your part as a decent institution in the community. From 1 October this year, my home state of South Australia became the first state where priests are now legally obliged to report any confessions of child sexual abuse. In response to these laws being put in place, we have the leadership within the Catholic diocese in Adelaide openly saying they will defy those laws. Despite everything that we have been through, despite all of the reporting that has gone on and the exposure of this horror and this evil, we have leadership within the Catholic Church saying that they are refusing, and will refuse, to comply with the basic necessity of mandatory reporting and that somehow their seal of confession is more sacred than the life of an innocent child. I fundamentally and strongly disagree. I hope that the public response on this issue creates pause for thought for a number of those within the leadership of the Catholic Church and the various dioceses about complying and not using the confessional as an excuse to keep secret these horrible, painful and evil acts. The report into institutionalised child sexual abuse also dealt, in a very sensitive manner, with the other contentious issue facing religious organisations. That, of course, is mandatory celibacy. Recommendations 16.18, 16.19 and 16.20 in the royal commission's final report all go to this. I strongly support that. If we are to be honest and brave, and if we are to pay genuine tribute and apology to all those who have suffered, to those children who never made it, to the survivors who are still in pain and suffering today, and to their children, who have suffered the intergenerational trauma of this abuse, we must also deal with forced celibacy within religious institutions. Canon law should be changed so that celibacy is not mandatory, and it should be illegal to force an individual to be celibate simply for religious tradition. I understand that this is a very sensitive element. I understand that this is a very controversial and sacred part of religious practice. But, if we are to be honest with ourselves, with the community and with the children who have suffered, we must face this and not hide behind it. There are many other good recommendations throughout this report. I am very pleased that the government, the opposition, the Greens and other members around this chamber and the other have agreed to take these on. We must also insist that religious institutions and the church leadership take them on as well. Let's not allow the pain and re-traumatisation to have happened in vain. These two issues, the seal of confession and the enforcement of celibacy, must change if we are to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect children and young people from the type of evil and horror that we know has existed for far too long in those dark corners of institutions, and adults must do their jobs to protect children and to protect the innocence of children. That is what is important here—not ancient law and practice, but the protection of the innocence of a child and their right to a childhood, to love and care, and to be believed and supported, without the cover-up and without the shame. 20:45 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia Little is more important in life than bringing children into this world. Nothing is more important than the responsibilities parents face, having made that fundamental decision—that is, to ensure that children can grow up in an environment where they have the best chance to prosper, to know that they are loved and, most importantly, that they are safe. Parents can and do a lot on their own, but the community has a role too. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse showed us how grievously as a community we have failed. Like those who have spoken before, today and tonight, I say sorry to the tens of thousands of children who suffered for so long at the hands of people they believed they could trust and who suffered as adults as their pleas were ignored. Sixteen thousand individuals contacted the commission with their deeply distressing accounts of abuse. More than 8,000 accounts were heard in person. For the commissioners and those working with them, I know this was a deeply distressing experience but one they weathered for the greater good. The commissioners and all associated with them are owed a great debt of gratitude, not just from the many who suffered for so long—voices in the wilderness often ignored by the institutions responsible for their abuse or, worse, belittled as they struggled for justice. Churches moved around priests who they knew were abusers. They resisted appeals from victims and their parents. They took legal advice designed to minimise their liability. The nation owes Julia Gillard a pat on the back and a collective hug for having the courage to establish the royal commission. As the former Prime Minister has noted, she worried at the time about the effects of an inquiry probing people's hurt. She was anxious that the inquiry would take a long time and cause frustration. Odd fears, she now notes, given the results and the recommendations of the royal commission. The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, deserves to be congratulated too, for promoting and leading the national apology. As the Prime Minister said three weeks ago: Why were the cries of children and parents ignored? Why was our system of justice blind to injustice? Why has it taken so long to act? Why were other things more important than this, the care of innocent children? These are unanswerable questions, but now the time for grief ought to be over. Now is the time for redress. How we as a parliament, and as a nation, respond to the royal commission will be the proof of what we have learnt as a community. Words are one thing, but actions are quite another. The government has not rejected a single recommendation of the royal commission. The Prime Minister says that the government is acting on 104 of the inquiry's 122 recommendations, and is consulting with the states and territories on the remaining 18. I note the four key areas of the findings and recommendations to be: child safety as a national responsibility, the need to implement child safe standards, the importance of believing children and the potential for a genuine apology to have a therapeutic benefit. As Professor Daryl Higgins, the Director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University puts it: For the apology to be meaningful, Australians will want concrete actions to provide redress for those already harmed. … … … … organisations can adopt prevention strategies that focus on modifying risky environments (including physical structures, policies and supervision practices), so that it is harder for would-be perpetrators to behave as they did in the past. Governance, funding arrangements and accreditation should be contingent on serious progress towards a culture of safety. A National Redress Scheme for victims of child sexual abuse in organisations, to allow psychological counselling and compensation of up to $150,000, has already been announced. But, as Professor Higgins points out, what people really need to hear is that things will change. They want to know what is happening in youth-serving organisations. How will the mistakes from the past not be repeated? They need to hear how child safe strategies will become standard practice. How will they, for example, be embedded in funding arrangements and accountability requirements? If organisations won't prioritise the safety and wellbeing of children, says Professor Higgins, then the public purse should not be open to them. The statistics revealed by the royal commission are as grim as they are stark. Close to 60 per cent of victims who approached the inquiry reported sexual abuse in religious institutions. A central recommendation of the inquiry was the National Redress Scheme. Despite various statements, the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting churches are yet to fully formally opt into the scheme. Apologies may have been made, but, once again, it is action which counts. As the Prime Minister puts it, justice, decency and the beliefs and values we as Australians share insist that they sign on. So far, though, some key institutions have not. Time is running out. Many of the victims are old, frail and ill. They deserve recognition, justice, treatment and recompense for their suffering. I applaud Senator Hinch, who has made chasing down child sexual abuse one of the missions of his career, both in the media and in this place. He has a motion on the Notice Paper for tomorrow calling on the government to withhold public funding and deny charity tax concessions to religious institutions that fail to opt into the National Redress Scheme by the end of 2018. It is a motion that I support, and I hope that government senators will support it, too, when it comes to a vote tomorrow. The royal commission reported in December last year. Twelve months is quite long enough for the institutions in question to sign up voluntarily. Then there is the CREATE Foundation, the peak body for foster care children, calling for: … a tightening of standards related to the ongoing monitoring of placements to ensure that children and young people in the out-of-home care system are provided the opportunity to have a voice in this monitoring process. The royal commission revealed that the out-of-home care sector, commonly known as 'foster care', was the worst source of child abuse in Australia in the years before 1990. Nearly 50,000 children are currently in out-of-home care across Australia. As the CREATE Foundation puts it: We must never again be in the position of ignoring so many children and young people who tried to tell their stories of abuse and were silenced by a flawed and non-accountable system. The last word should belong to Julia Gillard, who appealed to governments around Australia to develop schemes for the victims that will operate with 'a culture of openness and generosity'. As a community which did not sow such qualities in the past, it is the least we can do to heal the hurt and try to ensure it never happens again. 20:52 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Every child has the right to feel safe, to be heard and to be protected by those in whom their safety is entrusted. But, for survivors of institutionalised child abuse, those rights were denied. You sought safety and were subjected to unspeakable harm. You spoke up, and those with power turned away. You named demons and were demonised. For these unforgivable acts of avoidance, for the culture of wilful ignorance, for the pain and trauma that was met with silence, for the silence that was created and in which prowled the predators that did your life such terrible damage—for all these things and so much more—your parliament tonight offer up our apologies. There may well be those watching at home who neither trust the words we offer nor believe in the genuineness of the spirit in which they are put forward. To those I say: you have every right to be suspicious, because you placed your trust in us, you placed your trust in those who were charged with your protection, and we failed you. Our failure will cast a long shadow over this place and all places that took part in it—a shadow which we will never, nor should we ever, attempt to escape. We made you feel as though you were shameful, as though you were broken, when it was we who were broken, when it was our shame to be held. It is for us now to offer this recognition, to offer this apology and to humbly seek your forgiveness. It is for us now to dedicate ourselves solemnly to the work of making this apology material—to dedicate ourselves to doing those things which will ensure that no child is ever again subjected to the harms, that no child is ever again turned away from when they speak up and that no demon is ever again facilitated to prowl among the young of this nation. As we reflect upon the findings of the royal commission, as we absorb the stories that were so bravely told after being held for so long, we must reflect upon those things which caused these horrors to take place. We must recognise that our society has for too long disregarded the voices of children, treating them as mere chattels of adults and writing them off as imaginative and as liars when they come forward with their stories. We must reflect upon how we as a society can radically and urgently change this—the ways in which we can elevate and enshrine the rights of Australian children so that no child ever again is left to suffer in silence or subjected to abuse. I thank the chamber for its time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion of apology moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to. I will ask senators for a moment's silence to signify our assent to the motion. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. BILLS 111 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 111

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018

Second Reading 111 20:59 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. Labor supports every state and territory and our Commonwealth getting their fair share of GST revenues. Federal Labor has consistently led the way in arguing for GST reform that addresses the needs of Western Australia while also preserving much-needed funding across the other jurisdictions. It was of course Labor that first put forward policy to ensure that Western Australia got its fair share, without punishing the other states and territories. We announced this policy, our Fair Share for WA Fund, well over a year ago, at the end of August 2017. This policy recognised the issues that Western Australia had been experiencing and committed $1.6 billion at the time, funded by our sensible measures to improve the budget, which would have put Western Australia up to a 70c level. At the time, the coalition government criticised us for employing this top-up method. The then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, said, 'Top-ups forever is a mug's game.' This was merely the first in a number of inconsistencies in the government's approach to this issue, particularly over the course of last year. Indeed, after the government released its interim response to the PC inquiry, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, again led the policy debate in July of this year when he said: Make the floor the law. This was also ridiculed by the government, but just what has the government now done with this bill? They've accepted a 70c floor and a 75c floor, along with top-ups going on forever. The government's obstinacy was again on display when shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen, followed by the state and territory treasurers, unanimously called for a guarantee within the legislation so that no state or territory would be worse off as a result of the government's proposed new model. The government, at first, refused to heed these calls, saying there didn't need to be one because there was all this money available to the states. And yet, as evidenced in this legislation, Labor's position has been adopted and there is a guarantee within the legislation. While Labor has been consistent and principled in its approach, the government's approach has instead been to, at first, criticise what is a sensible proposal, then vacillate on their own position before, finally, backflipping. Ultimately, however, we're pleased the government has seen the sense of Labor's proposals and broadly adopted them, albeit utilising them with a slightly different mechanism. The need for a reconsideration of how the GST is distributed is well known, particularly as it relates to Western Australia. Never in the history of the GST has any other state or territory fallen below 86c in terms of their relativity, except, of course, Western Australia, which got as low as 30c in 2015-16 and 2016-17. It's important not to forget the role that a certain member of the Morrison government played in relation to the unenviable situation that Western Australia found itself in, particularly in relation to the GST. It was the then Treasurer of Western Australia, who, in early 2011, along with the then Premier, Colin Barnett, decided to raise royalties. This was a cynical and transparent attempt to force a change to the GST distribution so they could keep most of the money. And just who was that Treasurer? It was none other than the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, the member for Pearce. What was the result of this cynically engineered ploy? Well, as the shadow Treasurer put it to the House, it was to make 'a complete and utter mess' of the Western Australian state budget. Turning to the bill itself, the bill contains several elements that make up the government's proposal for the new GST distribution model. The bill makes changes to the GST distribution model, changing the equalisation method for horizontal fiscal equalisation from the fiscally strong state which was Western Australia to the strongest of either New South Wales or Victoria. The six-year transition period from the existing system to the new system starts in 2021-22 and finishes in 2026-27. This bill also legislates for a floor, which is precisely what Labor had been calling for. The bill contains a 70c floor for all states and territories in 2022-23 and 2023-24, rising to a 75c floor in 2024-25. The bill also contains a mechanism whereby the Commonwealth will provide an additional top-up into the GST pool in perpetuity. From 2021-22 onwards, the Commonwealth will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the states and territories: $600 million per year, indexed to GST revenue growth, from 2021-22 to 2023-24, rising to $850 million per year—again, indexed to GST revenue growth—from 2024-25 onwards. This will lead to top-ups of over $1 billion a year. The bill also contains a legislated guarantee that no state or territory will be worse off. This is a cumulative guarantee. If a state's or territory's entitlement over the transition period from 2021-22 to 2026-27 is less than they would have received, the guarantee will activate. On balance, we think this is a reasonable approach; however, it's not as if there are no concerns about it. The government has only provided a guarantee for the transition period. What happens beyond that time? What is to stop GST revenue being taken away from jurisdictions such as Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory? Notwithstanding that, we on this side of the chamber would like to see a long-term Labor government still in office at the end of this transition period. What could a future Liberal government do: cut schools and hospitals, as is their record and their preference? The bill also contains a requirement for a review by the Productivity Commission on whether the changes are operating efficiently, effectively and as intended. The review will also look at the fiscal implications for each state and territory as a result of this legislation. The Productivity Commission must submit its report to the government by 31 December 2026. We have no issues with this review. I would note, of course, that the last time the government initiated a PC review into the GST it actually rejected the recommendations—and with good reason, given that the commission's preferred model would have been completely unacceptable. I also note that this bill went through a short Senate inquiry. This provided the chance for states and territories to make submissions and to ensure that this legislation is doing what it is supposed to do. Again, let me make it clear that, while Labor will support this bill, it's not as though the states and territories did not raise concerns with the bill. Evidence to the Senate inquiry from the Victorian government went to the fact that the forecast of future relativities is subject to a high degree of variability, which could leave states and territories worse off. State and territory governments were notably concerned that the Commonwealth top-up funding might come at the expense of cuts to other funding arrangements. While a letter from the federal Treasurer to state and territory governments stated that 'any additional financial assistance referred to in the bill will not be offset or partially offset by a decrease in other grant funding to the states', there were still concerns raised. Federal Labor will hold this government to account on its commitment not to cut other funding to states and territories. We will scrutinise the imminent MYEFO budget update to determine just how the Morrison government will be paying for these top-up payments. Labor senators are of the view that the letter from the federal Treasurer to the state and territory treasurers ought to be tabled during the parliamentary debate so that the government's commitment to this issue can be strengthened. This is a government that can't be trusted. This is a government that is so consumed by its internal conflicts that it just can't get economic policy right, and this is another example. They have backflipped on each of the issues that Labor raised, and raised for due and proper reasons. This government is inconsistent. It's incoherent on economic policy. It makes promises and breaks them. Remember this government's commitment 'no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC or SBS'? Remember that? Have a look at what they've done in the last few days. They have made cuts to Foodbank, reducing its funding from $750,000 to $427,000. This is an operation, a non-government organisation, that sets about trying to help the most disadvantaged in our country. Foodbank leveraged their funding to $8 million through support from business. Across the country, 2,600 charities rely on Foodbank's support. So the government has cut funding to Foodbank. Trying to do some sleight of hand, the government have provided $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation—a small, private foundation—without a tender. That's great economic policy! They have provided $200 million to a project in Bob Katter's seat in return for his vote. What's that about? No wonder they're handing $200 million to a lower house member when they are in such a parlous state, when they are depending on the vote of Mr Katter. They are providing $60 million to deliver One Nation's policy on apprentices. Why would anyone take up any policy position of One Nation, especially a policy position that the coalition are now describing as the 'bush wage' to support apprentices? It is basically paying for apprentices' employment in their first, second and third years to various levels. The government actually subsidises apprentices generally, across the country, to the tune of $9,000. This attempt to get the support of One Nation will cost $92,000 per apprenticeship. Where's the economic rationality in that? Where is the logic in these decisions that this government is making, when it's desperately trying to cling to government? They're describing this so-called 'bush wage policy' as a 'pilot'. Well, if the pilot were run out across the rest of the country, it would cost $11 billion to subsidise apprenticeships across the nation. It's absolute economic nonsense. There are better, cheaper and more effective ways to deal with ensuring that apprentices are taken on, such as Labor's proposal that one in every 10 employees on government-funded projects is an apprentice. The government should stop this nonsense of trying to ensure that unions in the construction sector can't negotiate and reach agreement with their employer on employing apprentices. The government have made that illegal. By making that illegal, they now have to hand over $92,000 for every apprentice as part of their appeasement of the racist party, One Nation. They also provided $2 million to former Senator Bob Day to try and make sure that former Senator Bob Day voted with them. Then Senator Day had asked for $1.4 million to subsidise 20 apprentices, and the government handed him $2 million. Where's the economic rationale in that? This government must be watched. This government is about making promises based on securing its own survival. Its priorities are crazy. It's no wonder that Prime Minister Morrison described his own government as 'muppets', and it's no surprise that former Prime Minister Turnbull described those that knifed him in the back as 'mad'. So we've got the M&Ms, the 'mad muppets', across the chamber. That's all they are—a pathetic, declining government; a government in chaos; a government that claim economic superiority but don't have an economic brain in their head. Despite this, Labor will support this bill. We'll support the bill, but we will continue to monitor the crazy decisions that this government makes. We will continue to oppose bad decisions. We will continue to oppose bad economic decisions. Let's look at this government's record on economic decisions. What was their first position? It was an austerity budget in 2014-15 that would have made pensioners $80 a week worse off over 10 years and would have resulted in young kids getting no social security payments for six months—on the streets with nothing to spend and nothing to look after their basic needs. Then the government moved from that to handing the GST over to the states. Remember that economic policy? Prime Minister Turnbull announced it at Penrith Stadium, and it lasted a day and a half. Then they moved from that to other crazy propositions, like trickle-down economics—that workers would be better off if the big end of town was given $80 billion and the banks were given about $17 million. The government have no economic credibility. They are a mess. We need to get to an election and we need to get rid of these mad muppets as soon as possible. (Time expired) 21:19 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise this evening to make a very short contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018, because this is a government that is getting on with the job and we don't need to spend the next 20 minutes talking about that. But I do wish to pay tribute to six people who have made a really significant contribution. The first is, of course, the former Treasurer, the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who is the person who has managed to shepherd through what was said to be—and I won't name the people who said this; we all know who they were—impossible to achieve. But he has achieved it. The other people I wish to pay tribute to are my Senate colleagues from Western Australia. Two of them are in the chamber this evening—Senator Dean Smith and Senator Linda Reynolds. The others are Senators Michaelia Cash and Mathias Cormann. The genesis of this significant national reform and the hard work that was done in achieving it were largely done before my time in the Senate, and I wish to acknowledge the significant contribution of my four colleagues in standing up for the rights of Western Australia, standing up for the proper place of the Senate as a states' house in this Federation and achieving what many said was impossible: significant reform of GST-sharing arrangements to the significant benefit of our home state of Western Australia. I thank you all. 21:21 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I too rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. But I really do want what actually happened to be put on the record. Senator Cameron, in his contribution to this debate, outlined in a series of events how we got to where we are today. I have to say that we got here with the government dragging its heels and criticising Labor every step of the way. We got here because Premier Mark McGowan made this his No. 1 priority on winning the election last year. When we look at where WA has come from in getting a fair go for GST, we had, for many years, a Liberal state government and, coinciding with that, a Liberal federal government. Within the Western Australian component, from the Liberal Party we had cabinet ministers and other ministers with very important portfolios, and none of them lifted a finger. I will pay tribute to Senator Dean Smith, who, with a Liberal state government and a Liberal federal government, wasn't able to deliver GST reform but wasn't afraid to speak out about it. He was the only one. When we look at Senator Cormann, part of his experience as a senior minister from Western Australia has been as the acting Prime Minister. What did he do for GST reform? Nothing—diddly squat! What did Ms Bishop, the member for Curtin and our former foreign minister, do about GST reform when we had a Liberal government in the state and here? Nothing! What did the Attorney-General, Mr Christian Porter, the member for Pearce, do? I might just leave him, because I'd really like to put his record on the Hansard tonight. What did Minister Keenan, the longstanding member for Stirling and a minister in successive Liberal federal governments, do about GST reform in WA? Nothing—absolutely nothing! Mr Wyatt became a minister more recently, but he's been the long-term member for Hasluck. What has he done on GST reform? Nothing! What has Mr Steve Irons, the member for Swan—sadly, my local member, although, hopefully, in the election we'll change that—done about GST reform? I follow Mr Irons carefully and closely; he's my local member. Nothing! I've never ever seen a leaflet from Mr Irons that talked about the need for GST reform. Minister Cash was a fairly high-profile minister who had a fall from grace. What did she do on GST reform? Nothing! So on and on it goes. All these very important people, very important ministers, in this federal Liberal government—one of them was the acting Prime Minister for some time—have done nothing. I want to come back to Mr Porter, the member for Pearce—and, hopefully, that will change too because there are a number of marginal seats in Western Australia and they play into this agenda as well. He was the Treasurer in the state Liberal government under Mr Barnett. Mr Barnett was absolutely booted out of the parliament last year in the state's election, suffering the biggest loss the Liberal Party had ever seen in Western Australia because he put the state into record debt. We hear those opposite—in particular, Minister Cormann—talking about debt and deficit. What did they ever say to Mr Barnett when he racked up a massive debt so bad that the WA treasury just before the state election last year raised real concern about the level of interest payments Western Australians were being saddled with? Who was the Treasurer who incurred most of that debt? Who was the Treasurer? Senator Cameron AI6 Can I guess? Senator LINES 112096 Go right ahead, Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron AI6 The member for Pearce. Senator LINES 112096 It was the member for Pearce, Mr Porter. Mr Nahan had a bit of a hand in it as well, but when you look at the reports of the Western Australian economy most of that debt belonged to Mr Porter. No wonder he took the seat of Pearce and skedaddled out of the state parliament as quickly as he could. No wonder. So Mr Porter bears a big responsibility for the debt that Mr Barnett's government left the Western Australian people with. Is it any wonder that they were unceremoniously kicked out of office last year? Mr Porter then came here. I'm the duty senator for Pearce, so I like to watch what he's up to as well. Never did I see Mr Porter trying to do anything about the GST. When Mr McGowan came into power, he said that he would do something about the GST—and, to his absolute credit, he has. He also pledged to the Western Australian public that he would reduce the debt, and he's done that. Under Mr Porter, Mr Nahan and Mr Barnett, WA lost its AAA credit rating. There were all sorts of downgrades. It was just a disgrace. But what have we seen the Liberals doing in Western Australia? Suddenly they realised the only person who ever mentioned the GST was Senator Smith, so they started running full-page ads having a go at Labor, somehow trying to run this story that Labor weren't interested in fixing the GST. As Senator Cameron has outlined, we were the first people interested. We put the Fair Share for WA Fund up, which effectively would have taken the GST floor to 70c. Mr Morrison just mocked that. We insisted that, when Mr Morrison finally got around to putting a fix in, the floor be legislated. He scoffed at that. In fact, I was at a media conference with Senator Wong when she was asked, 'But surely when the bill comes before the parliament, Senator Wong, you'll back off on that; you won't push with this ridiculous idea to legislate the floor?' Senator Wong said, in no uncertain terms, that we would. And what happened? Suddenly Mr Morrison was onboard. So we've now got the floor legislated. We also said, 'No other state or territory is to be worse off.' Again, we were given the promise: 'Trust us. We made those commitments about the ABC, SBS and school funding. You can trust us. We never go back on our word.' Of course, the states and territories were never, ever going to sign up to that. So we now have the guarantee in place. But I think the thing that really got me—it didn't get under my skin; I just thought, 'Boy, some people are really cheeky!'—was when I got a letter from Mr Nahan, one of the treasurers who put WA into massive debt. He didn't just send it to me; he sent it to Senator Dodson, Senator Pratt and Senator Sterle. But as he was pressing the email 'send' button he also sent it to the media. So it wasn't really a letter to Labor senators; it was a bit of political grandstanding. Dr Nahan tried to make a claim in this letter that somehow Labor, who were on the public record, weren't going to support the GST fix. I took the opportunity to ask Dr Nahan a few questions of my own. When he was treasurer, what was he doing about this massive debt that Mr Porter started and he continued? What was he doing about that? What was he doing about the massive unemployment rate that, along with Mr Barnett and Mr Porter, he created? What was he doing about the loss of our AAA credit rating? All this happened under Dr Nahan, Mr Porter and Mr Barnett. Well surprise, surprise! I haven't had a response from Dr Nahan. I thought it was fair, because he'd published his letter, that I publish mine, so I published that letter. It didn't stop there. I then got a letter—and I presume other senators did as well—from Senator Cormann. His is somewhat longer than Dr Nahan's, setting out all the evil things that Labor is alleged to have done. Perhaps I will let Minister Cormann answer for himself, but I don't think he published this to the news media. He certainly showed them. So, because there was the benefit of the doubt, I didn't publish mine to the media. I thought: 'Fair go! He didn't publish it; he only showed it.' But he, too, picks up some of Dr Nahan's nonsense about trying to pretend that Labor wasn't supporting the GST. I went back to Minister Cormann and asked him the same questions—the same ones that Dr Nahan wouldn't answer. We've heard in here that he likes to talk about debt and deficit. He likes to say that the federal government, despite its massive debt at the moment, somehow has reduced debt. I thought, 'I'll ask him the questions.' So I asked him, as the federal counterpart—he's part of the Liberal Party, and presumably they talk to one another—if he had ever raised concerns with Mr Porter about the massive debt he'd occurred. I asked him if he'd ever raised concerns with Dr Nahan about the loss of the AAA credit rating. I asked Minister Cormann if he had raised concerns with Mr Barnett about the rising and massive record unemployment under the Liberals in Western Australia. I asked Minister Cormann why there were these reports from Treasury warning about the dangers of the Western Australian debt. Surprise, surprise! I heard nothing back from Minister Cormann either. I say in my letter: 'I note your letter to WA Labor senators and MPs regarding the GST. It's hard to see this letter as anything other than a cheap political stunt, as it was given to the WA media at the same time it was sent to us.' I can only conclude that Senator Cormann isn't interested in responding to my questions about what was going on in Western Australia under the Barnett Liberal government and, indeed, when Mr Porter was the treasurer, what was happening with our debt. As I said at the outset, there was just silence, when Colin Barnett was in power, about fixing up the GST. I attended the Senate inquiry into this bill. It was really interesting to hear from the states and territories. It was really a very productive day to hear from everyone. So important is this GST fix to Western Australia that Premier McGowan came and gave evidence. That is unprecedented, I think. I know that he will be watching this debate tonight. What Mr Barnes, the Under Treasurer, said at the inquiry was interesting. He said the disadvantage 'is not the size of WA's total revenue base or the growth in that total revenue base; it is the composition of that revenue base'. The really important point is, he said: … about 18 per cent of our total revenue comes from mining royalties and about 86 per cent of that comes from iron ore. That's where WA is the outlier compared to the other states, and it is that outlier composition of our revenue base that drives the distortions and the disincentives under the current system. He thought that 'was quite an important distinction', and I agree with him. He also said: Just to highlight those distortions and disincentives, in the last financial year WA collected about $4.5 billion in iron ore royalties and this year our GST relativity is 47.3 per cent. If, instead of collecting that $4.5 billion in iron ore royalties, we instead collected the same quantum of revenue from payroll tax or stamp duty, our GST relativity would be over 100 per cent and we wouldn't be sitting here today. Mr McGowan made similar comments in talking about gold and iron ore. He made the point: I could give you just one example of that. Because Western Australia is a big iron ore mining state—other states have small iron ore industries, but we have … the big one—90 per cent of what we raise from iron ore is redistributed. There was a similar amount from gold. About 60 per cent of gold revenue is redistributed. I do commend the bill. I'm keen to get it voted on and I'm keen for Western Australia to get its fair share. I am very pleased that the Morrison government has followed Labor's lead and is going to legislate the floor and that it has made the guarantee that no other state or territory will be worse off. I would not have copped a situation where WA got something and other states and territories got nothing, because it should be fair and we should have a situation where everyone gets a fair go. Now that Mr Morrison has followed Labor's lead, that is in fact what will happen. 21:38 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales The bill before us today is a lie. It is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. If it was just rearranging the distribution of GST revenues to make it fair—whatever 'fair' might mean—at least it would have no overall financial impact. What we have instead is a bill that will cost taxpayers $9 billion over 10 years. What is going on here and who is stretching the truth? This bill is fundamentally about authorising the Commonwealth government to throw $9 billion at state and territory governments, over and above the GST revenues they already receive. This bill is not about a fair share of GST. It is about grabbing $9 billion from taxpayers in addition to their payment of GST and throwing that money to state and territory governments on an unconditional basis in what amounts to a massive bribe to get out of a political problem caused by the crazy fiscal relationships between the states and the Commonwealth. This is also not some trivial transitional grant; it is permanent change, entrenched in law. No longer can there be any pretence that state and territory governments receive GST revenues and the Commonwealth government receives income tax. The Commonwealth collects both GST and income tax revenues in massive proportions, massive quantities, and then decides—now on a political whim—what it might pass to state and territory governments. This time, that whim is to save some seats in Western Australia, but who knows what it might be in the future, because there is no reasoning or predictability? The truth is federal financial relations in this country are a shambles. We have a federal government that raises the money, and state and territory governments that spend it, with next to no accountability anywhere. The Liberal Democrats have a fully funded, costed and published plan to get rid of the interstate welfare system called horizontal fiscal equalisation. Under our plan, taxpayers would see their tax bill slashed in half so they would keep much more of their hard-earned money. Crucially, each state government would be required to raise all the money they spend, so they would have no-one to blame but themselves if they ran out. There would be no more blaming the Commonwealth because they didn't get enough. But let's get back to this bill. Of course, the great bulk of the $9 billion in handouts authorised by the bill is being thrown at the beggar state and territory governments—in particular those in Tasmania and South Australia. Regardless of which major party is in power, these beggar governments continue to hold back the prosperity of the people they are supposed to represent. These beggar governments only see the upside of preventing development, of smothering their small businesses in red tape and of making fanciful commitments to renewable energy. They should feel the downside of more expensive energy, fewer bustling small businesses and fewer jobs. But, for these beggar governments, such a downside is merely a recipe for more and more compensation from taxpayers in the rest of the Federation. I don't expect this Senate to object to throwing billions of dollars of taxpayers funds at beggar governments in places like Tasmania and South Australia; after all, all the major parties are infested with a disproportionate number of beggar politicians from those states and territories. But it should. In fact, what we need is a 'begxit', where the beggar states exit the Federation. But the beggar governments of these states never do anything for themselves, so they won't exit of their own accord. The rest of us, with the Liberal Democrats at the vanguard, will need to arrange it for them. 21:43 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise to add my contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. My contribution won't be as colourful as Senator Leyonhjelm's. I do want to make it very clear at the outset that Labor does support this bill, but we do so with quite some degree of reservation. My reservation centres on three key points: firstly, the arbitrary nature of the Commonwealth's decision to introduce this legislation while questions from the states and territories remain unanswered; secondly, the complete lack of transparency from this government about how it intends to fund the top-up policy that this legislation introduces; and, thirdly, the likelihood that this untrustworthy government won't make good on its commitment not to cut other crucial funding to states and territories. Health or education funding, national partnership funding agreements on housing and early childhood education and care could all be at risk under a government that changes its mind and its Prime Minister at the whim of the polls. I will come back to these points shortly. I also want to point out that it is Labor that has led the way when it comes to GST reform. It was Labor that listened to the concerns of the states and territories and took them seriously. It was Labor who took on board the plight of Western Australia, where not only the financial mismanagement of the Liberal Barnett government—although that was a key factor—but also the effects of the time lag in the current method of GST distribution meant that a drop in Western Australia's share coincided with a sudden economic downturn, significantly affecting the state's ability to balance the books. That's why Labor announced the Fair Share for WA Fund, a fund designed to bring Western Australia up to the equivalent of 70c in the GST dollar. During the course of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, the Premier of Western Australia, Mr McGowan, attended—as Senator Leyonhjelm indicated—and he made it very clear that he thought that the Labor announcement of the Fair Share for WA Fund was a game changer in ensuring that there was a positive outcome for West Australia. There was a policy vacuum in this area. The government wasn't coming to the party and so it fell to Labor to come forward with a tangible policy response. Mr Shorten and federal Labor came forward with that policy response to a long acknowledged problem. Contrary to what the coalition subsequently proposed, the Fair Share for WA Fund was structured to ensure that other states and territories would not see any reduction in their GST funding. I'm a senator for Queensland, so, whilst we would like to see Western Australia dealt with fairly, we certainly don't want to see any reduction in funding for Queenslanders, particularly given the fact that Queensland is a decentralised state. Once the coalition came to the party on GST reform, Labor fought for and won a seven-year guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off under the new funding arrangements. This important Labor achievement is one of the key reasons that I will be voting for this bill. I will now outline, for the benefit of those listening or watching, what this bill is proposing to do. It largely responds to a report from the Productivity Commission inquiry into horizontal fiscal equalisation. The report recommended changes to the method of distribution of the GST, in recognition that the current method of distribution is sometimes disadvantageous, particularly in the case of economic shocks in our economy and particularly in the case of Western Australia in recent times. To change the method of GST distribution, this bill amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 and the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to transition our current system of full horizontal fiscal equalisation, or HFE, to a system of reasonable equalisation, which means equalising to the stronger performing state of New South Wales and Victoria. The bill goes on to introduce a minimum GST-revenue-sharing relativity, or GST relativity floor, that may be determined by the Treasurer for any individual state or territory, and it also permanently boosts the GST revenue pool with additional Commonwealth financial assistance. The bill also provides for measures during the transition period, including payments to be made to any state or territory with a GST revenue-sharing relativity below a relativity factor of 0.7, or 70c in the dollar, later moving to 0.75; payments to be made to the Northern Territory if its GST-revenue-sharing relativity falls below its determined relativity factor for 2017-18; and a guarantee that each state and territory will get the better of the current distribution system or the updated distribution system during the transition period. In addition, the explanatory memorandum to the bill provides that the Productivity Commission will be required to conduct an inquiry at the end of the transition period, and additional Commonwealth funding under the new method of distribution and top-up arrangements will be nearly $9 billion over 10 years. I would now like to go back and look at the history of GST reform, for the benefit of those listening. The GST was introduced in the year 2000 by the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard—although, as people listening might recall, the following comments were made by Mr Howard in 1995, before he was elected: There's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy … Never ever. It's dead. After being elected, the Liberals changed their tune, with Mr Howard— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 117 ADJOURNMENT Nuclear Energy 117 21:50 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales I rise this evening to speak on the subject of nuclear energy. Our government is working to overcome a crisis of confidence in energy, and it is making good progress. Our nation is blessed with abundant resources—the basis of affordable, reliable energy that Australia once enjoyed. Yet only one in four Australians believe that the energy market is working in their interests, according to a recent survey. We in parliament have a responsibility to the Australian people to turn this around, to return energy policy to a sensible footing and restore public confidence. To do this, we are getting back to basics, examining the problem and potential solutions with open minds. In the short term, the government's top priority is reducing energy prices, as it should be. Minister Taylor recently announced that we are working towards fairer pricing arrangements that stop energy companies taking advantage of customers. These changes are overdue and should be supported. They promise to make a difference to power bills as soon as possible, which is exactly what Australians desperately need. However, there are other answers to the big underlying problems in the energy sector. The big challenge in energy is what experts call the trilemma. Over the past decade, the Australian government has concentrated on three things: affordability, reliability, and emissions reduction. The problem is that the technologies in our present energy mix cannot satisfy all three criteria. We have such problems in energy because we are working towards priorities that are difficult to meet with the technologies we are using. Solving the trilemma is the key to restoring confidence in the energy sector. If we are to do this, we must sensibly and deliberately explore potential solutions. The full range of potential solutions over the short, medium and long term must be explored. For too long, Australia's energy debate has focused on coal versus renewables, but by focusing on coal versus renewables we may lose sight of the true breadth of alternatives over the longer period. One of these alternatives is nuclear energy. In recent weeks, a real conversation has started about nuclear energy; it needs to be continued, because Australia has neglected it as an option for decades. It's time to seriously examine its potential for Australia's energy needs in the 21st century. If we are to be truly fair minded and technologically neutral in relation to our energy future, nuclear deserves serious and sober consideration. Like coal, nuclear energy promises affordable and reliable base-load power. More importantly, it produces a very low level of CO2 emissions. Over time, it has the unique potential to solve the energy trilemma by combining the best of all other technologies. Expert assessments demonstrate that nuclear is the cheapest energy option that isn't coal. A modern nuclear plant would be able to provide, at minimal operating costs, power for more than half a century. That means that, averaged out over the total life cycle of a power plant, the cost of nuclear energy would be very low. And the up-front cost of plants keep falling as technology advances. A report from the US Energy Innovation Reform Project reveals that the next generation of advanced reactors will cost substantially less than current models. The findings of this report suggest nuclear prices per megawatt-hour are likely to be comparable to those of coal and gas, as presented in the Finkel report. That needs to be repeated: nuclear prices per megawatt-hour are likely to be comparable to those of coal and gas, as presented in the Finkel report. Unlike coal and gas, nuclear power promises an affordable, reliable energy source without any CO2 emissions. The report of South Australia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that nuclear was comparable with wind in producing negligible CO2 emissions. In fact, the total life cycle emissions from nuclear are even less than that of solar. Let me also repeat that: the total life cycle emissions from nuclear are even less than that of solar. Nuclear could, therefore, over time, slash Australia's CO2 emissions. A study from Electric Power Consulting demonstrated that replacing all coal with nuclear in Australia's energy mix some time in the future would reduce emissions by 93 per cent, and replacing our old coal power plants with advanced nuclear reactors would make a tremendous reduction in emissions and allow Australia to far surpass our international commitments. Unlike renewables, nuclear promises great reliability. It is not dependent on the sun shining or the wind blowing. It can operate continuously without interruption. This makes nuclear well suited to providing base load power at a scale appropriate for Australia's energy needs. It could supplement or even replace coal as the foundation of Australia's base load power supply. In short, nuclear offers to blend the advantages of coal and renewables. It is reliable, low-cost, low emissions technology. There are other merits, of course, to nuclear power, beyond solving the trilemma. We live in a time of tremendous technological innovation and nuclear power is no exception. The reactors of today are a long way from the reactors of half a century ago, and the reactors we will see coming online within the next decade will be even more advanced. They will be smaller, safer, cleaner and more efficient than any reactors we have ever seen before. While we strive to get out of our energy crisis, the rest of the world is embracing nuclear energy for the 21st century. Australia is the only OECD country yet to do so. There is nuclear expertise in this country, but there is also a deep reservoir of international expertise in nuclear energy into which Australia can tap. We would stand to benefit from integration into the existing international networks of scientific, technical and commercial collaborations. Australia could also benefit from adopting the most advanced technology from overseas. This means that we could take the best the world has to offer, learn from mistakes that have been made elsewhere and develop our own expertise through our world-class education and research institutions. This is not to say that there are no questions to be investigated. I'm not recommending nuclear unquestioningly, nor suggesting that we rush headlong into it. Many questions would need to be considered—for instance, what sort of reactor technology would best suit Australia's needs? Some of the designs shortlisted by the Generation IV International Forum was thorium fuel molten salt reactors and graphite-moderated, very-high temperature reactors. These are the kinds of questions that would need to be answered. Many Australians would also have concerns that would need to be addressed, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental impact. There can be no ducking these matters. They require honest and careful investigation. Questions need to be asked and objections listened to. What is no longer debateable is that nuclear should be considered as an option for Australia's long-term energy needs. We in this chamber have a common responsibility to ensure that Australia's best interests are served by the policies we enact. Energy policy has been deficient in this regard. The Australian people expect and deserve their standards of living to improve and not get worse. We've seen prices increase and reliability decrease. This impacts families and also businesses. Until recently, most Australians paid little attention to energy—they had no need. They could carry on with confidence that in energy, as in other policy areas, their elected representatives would work in their best interests. We are here in this parliament to do what we can to help realise the Australian dream: the promise of a better future for Australians, their children and their grandchildren and to advance Australia's interests through policies that can help to bring better lives to the citizens of this nation. If nuclear proves to be the best option for Australia's energy future, as I believe it will, we owe it to the Australian people to give it our full consideration. Road Safety 119 21:59 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety I want to make a contribution about my favourite topic in this place. Recently the Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics, a division of the federal Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, launched on their website the Vision Zero dashboard, which allows users to view all local government areas with zero deaths over a 10-year period. It can be found at bitre.gov.au/dashboards/#vision. These statistics show a number of years a council has not had a fatality on their roads. It's sad to see that only 19 councils out of the 537 in Australia have not had a fatality for the whole 10-year period. Those 19 councils represent about 35,000 people. The councils in South Australia are Kimba, Wudinna and Maralinga Tjarutja; in Western Australia, East Fremantle—which I'm reliably informed is probably the smallest council in Australia—Wyalkatchem, Koorda, Wiluna and Unincorporated Other Territories; in the Northern Territory, Wagait council is the only one with no fatalities; and in Queensland, Doomadgee, Mornington, Kowanyama, Aurukun, Mapoon, Torres, Torres Strait Island, Hope Valley, Wujal Wujal, Richmond and Cherbourg. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT did not have a council area without fatalities in the 10-year recorded period. Not one of these councils that I've mentioned has more than 10,000 people. In fact, most of them are under 5,000 and quite a number have fewer than 2,000 people, so it's alarming to see that over a 10-year period most councils in Australia have fatalities. When you press on the interactive map, you find that most councils are having fatalities year-in, year-out. In South Australia, that includes Onkaparinga, Mount Barker, West Torrens, Charles Sturt, Adelaide Hills, Salisbury, Playford, Barossa, Murray Bridge, Alexandrina and Goyder. These councils have not seen a single year of zero deaths in their council areas. This is replicated right across every state and capital city in Australia. Again, looking specifically at South Australia, the councils of Port Adelaide, Enfield, Tea Tree Gully, Marion, Light, Coorong, Tatiara, Wattle Range, Clare and Gilbert Valleys, Wakefield and Yorke Peninsula have had only one year in 10 fatality free. No wonder, in the report of the Inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20, the recommendation was made: Make road safety a genuine part of business as usual within Commonwealth, state, territory and local government. The co-chair of the inquiry, Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley, commented that local government has 80 per cent of the road, and 50 per cent of casualty crashes occur on these roads. Local government needs to be part of the solution. I have to put on the record that at times I'm extremely critical of the department, but this is the first step towards this. This is good and useful work that must be continued. If we look at the budget papers, we will see that the expenditure in 2018-19 for blackspot projects is $85 million spread around these particular areas. If we look at the Roads to Recovery, which predominantly goes to construction and maintenance programs at the local level, we'll see another $364.5 million going directly to predominantly local councils. If we look at the road investment component, we will see in 2018-19 there is $3.694 billion of road investment component delivering the majority of the Commonwealth's investment in road infrastructure. It targets nationally significant projects and will improve the efficiency and safety of Australia's road network, so there's a massive investment by the Commonwealth in blackspots, Roads to Recovery and the national network. What we're not seeing is that it's targeted to specific safety recovery measured outcomes. We're not seeing the connectivity and the prescient allocation of funds to deliver both the good roads and the safe outcomes. During estimates, my comments to Ms Leeming were: I find it exhilarating that finally we have someone who knows their stuff in this area. On notice, I would like to see how many, in the 2017-18 year, are using the common sense … audit and how many are using the unfortunate probability of death and injury … We were talking about Black Spot funds. There is the ability to get in front of the curve: it's to do the safety audit, apply the black spot treatment without having to have the awful evidence of death and injury. We do have, and we are starting to get, very proactive bureaucrats in the department who are getting up and defending the way the Commonwealth is acting in this area, which is good. We've finally got a website which will tell us how effective that is. If you live in a council area where your council hasn't had a death- and injury-free 10 years, you should be asking questions, because you're on those roads, and not all of those councils are all that geographically large. A lot of those inner-city councils are not geographically large. You could be one of these statistics. We see an enormous amount of federal funding going into the Black Spot and Roads to Recovery programs and into making our road networks safer, but we don't see any measurement of it being applied in essential areas to have safe outcomes. There is an enormous growth in road transport, and we have people saying that electric cars are going to come along and take it all away; we won't need to worry. That is all going to be quite considerably into the future. We know that, if you look at a place like the Northern Territory, they're running at statistics that are almost 50 per cent higher than last year. There have been 50 per cent more deaths than last year. We know that they have only one council area in the entire Northern Territory that has been fatality-free. If you want to know where Wagait council is, it's on the peninsula at Mandorah. It's a very small community and, fortunately, it has had that very good record. But every other piece of the Northern Territory has not been fatality-free, and most areas of South Australia are not fatality-free. Most areas of Melbourne, New South Wales and the ACT are not fatality-free. We're applying federal funds to these areas. We should be applying them as diligently as we can. We should be measuring the outcomes and, where we're having success ahead of the curve, we should be making sure that that's transported all the way around the network to ensure that you can click on this interactive map of Australia, which is available to all citizens, and see what your council area is doing in terms of being fatality-free. We know the department is starting to get its act together. It has been pressed and pushed at estimates and in other areas, it has had inquiries launched by Minister Chester, and it has had good work done by Deputy Prime Minister McCormack. But we need to press on with this. This will not go away. We continue to lose 1,200 Australians a year and injure many more thousands of people. The cost to the economy is over $30 billion. If we're applying the funds in the correct way, we should be measuring the outcomes to make sure we're getting the right results. And, when we get the right results in a particular area, we need to make sure that they are replicated all around the network all around the country. This is not rocket science or brain surgery; this is simple applied economics 101. If we take $364 million of Roads to Recovery funds, $85 million of Black Spot funds and $3.6 billion of efficiency and safety dollars, invest it in a single year and measure it and report it, we should get the best possible outcome for the taxpayer's dollar. This is a very good start by BITRE. I commend them for it and look forward to significant improvement in this space. Newton, Mrs Joyce, OAM 120 22:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland There is a small town up in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. It's on the slopes and the hills of the Blackall Range. It's guarded to the south by the Glass House Mountains. It's called Maleny. It's one of those changing rural towns. Forty years ago it was full of dairy farmers and now it's full of tourists, and a lot of people retire there. It's a similar community to those small rural communities you see across the state where there are always one or two people who are the drivers of the town and the community. And perhaps one of the tragic injustices of life is that we often speak highly of the people who are the leaders of the community only after they have passed. And for many years, the Maleny community—indeed, the entire hinterland community—benefited from the passion and the dedication of Mrs Joyce Newton OAM. Joyce dedicated much of her life—indeed, probably all of her life—to giving to the community, giving to community groups and giving to make her local neighbourhood and her locality a better place. She was assisted by Greg and the children—Ty, Jennifer, Daniel and Carl—and their families. Joyce made such an incredible mark on the Sunshine Coast and, in particular, the hinterland. She reflected recently that her greatest passion throughout her life had been education. In earlier years, Joyce taught maths and science at the Maleny secondary department. After her children arrived, Joyce became a relief teacher at what was then the new Maleny State High School. Joyce was one of those people who was involved in everything. She sat on the P&C executives of the primary and high schools. She restarted the Maleny community kindergarten. She ran the blood bank at the local hospital, kept the Maleny guides going and kept the playgroup running. She sat on the advisory group of the Maleny Community Precinct group. That's to name just a few of the many, many groups that Joyce was involved with. These groups relied on Joyce, as did the Queensland National Party and, later, the Liberal National Party, where she led the SEC for many years. I first met Joyce and her husband, Greg, through the Liberal National Party in 2010. Joyce was always on the front line of election campaigns, rallying members, rallying the community and keeping feckless campaign directors like myself under control. I learned quickly to respect Greg and Joyce, but, in particular, Joyce, because, I'm not afraid to admit, I was slightly scared of Joyce. And it's not because Joyce was a scary person. It's just that she was one of those people who had this ability to make you want to not fail her. She was giving so much, and it was up to you to make sure that you could also give so much. If she could do so much in her life, so should you. Joyce loved to have an argument, and I mean that in the best sense of the word. Nothing made Joyce shine like a good discussion or a good argument. But it wasn't about winning; it was just about helping people. It was about what she could do to help people and make them feel better. We need more people like Joyce in our community. Joyce and her husband, Greg, were a formidable team. They're quite different people, in a way. I don't know if Joyce ever swore in her life. If she did, she probably did it in the privacy of her own home. Greg is someone who fills the swear jar on a daily basis. Indeed, in her phone calls with him, the swear jar was filled. They met overseas. He was a long-haired, hippie-esque dairy farmer from New Zealand, and she was from Ohio. The story goes—at least, the story that I'm telling—that they met overseas. Within minutes if not hours, Greg knew that Joyce was the person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with, and, shortly after, they were married and moved to the Sunshine Coast, where they became dairy farmers. It was very sad when, in early 2017, we on the coast learned that Joyce had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease—that most terrible of diseases. Joyce had been given just under 12 months to live, but, because she's one of those people who doesn't take orders from anybody, she proved the doctors wrong. Then, after more than 36 years of dedicated service to the National Party and then the Queensland Liberal National Party, she was honoured with honorary life membership of the party in 2017. When she was given this award in Cairns, I can say that there was not a dry eye in the room. And, earlier this year, Joyce was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday honours for her service to the community of Maleny. It was very special, because she was a very special person. The Governor of Queensland made the visit to her family home in Maleny to personally hand the honour, the award, to Joyce in her family living room. It was very sad that Joyce passed away about a month ago. It is not fair. Life is not fair, but it's not fair that Joyce was taken from her family and from the community when she had so much more to give. While I know she's upstairs, keeping St Peter, God and all those characters in order, I know that her greatest monument will always be her loving, slightly loud, sometimes rambunctious and earthy family. I hope the Maleny community, the people of the Sunshine Coast and the many members of the Liberal National Party never forget the selfless approach of Joyce Newton OAM. Joyce was everything so many of us in politics are not, and she was so much more than what I've been able to describe today. Senate adjourned at 22:15 DOCUMENTS 121 DOCUMENTS Tabling 121 Tabling 126 Tabling 130