DOCUMENTS

2019-09-19 46 1 1 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 19 September 2019

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 1 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind honourable senators that pursuant to the order of the Senate agreed to yesterday, 18 September, the address-in-reply will be presented to the Governor-General at Government House today at 5 pm. For this purpose, the sitting of the Senate will be adjourned at 4.30 pm. Cars will leave the Senate entrance at 4.45 to take senators to Government House. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019

Second Reading 1 09:32 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Ciccone, I withdraw the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet No. 8769. One concern raised yesterday regarding the superannuation bill was the emphasis of the risk the legislation poses to young people in high-risk occupations. It is a basic expectation that all Australian workers can have a safe workplace and come home uninjured and unharmed from a day's work. As a proud member of the union movement and as someone who for 30 years has represented workers' fight for fair pay, conditions and safety standards, I know how important to working people protecting and uplifting working people's rights is. Workers in the transport industry, to which I have devoted much of my working life, work in one of the most dangerous industries, with 10 times the number of workplace deaths than the average across all industries. Yesterday there were some questions raised about the ACTU figures, about the number of people who are injured. It wasn't raised from the point of view that the figures were wrong; it was raised for the fact that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had a view about it. It was an interesting debate last night. The ACTU recorded, between 2003 and 2016, more than 3,400 workers losing their lives on their job. Of those, close to 10 per cent were under the age of 25. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, would remove default superannuation for workers under 25. Some in government seem to think workers under 25 are less likely to have dependants and so insurance is less valuable for them. They also seem to think because workers are under 25, they're less likely to draw on disability insurance, that they don't need it. It's a ludicrous situation. They're talking about young construction workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, forestry and farm workers, prison officers, nurses and healthcare workers. All those workers have a higher risk of suffering a workplace injury; they are at a higher risk of dying on the job. More than 27 per cent under the age of 25 are in a high-risk job such as these. Insurance has real value for them, and real value for their dependent families, many of whom will have the economic burden—and the family and emotional burden—of caring for those who have been injured. It has been suggested that if insurance is important to these individuals then they could seek individual cover themselves rather than relying on the default cover provided by their super funds. The truth is 18- to 25-year-olds are known for sensible risk mismanagement. The question of life insurance and the risk of suffering an accident at work or on the roads isn't front of mind for young people who are starting out in life. An example of that, of how the government has no understanding of under-25s, is the food service delivery industry, where workers are being regularly ripped off. They not only don't have superannuation and insurance; they also don't have minimum rights, because this government has no serious intention of making sure that under-25s have an opportunity to turn around and get a valuable paid job with dignity, respect, insurance and superannuation. I'll give a recent example, of someone in Perth. A female Uber Eats cyclist's delivery trips in Perth's east ended in a nightmare when she was hit by a car, trapped and dragged along the road for 100 metres. Ms Morgado, 23, was cycling in Carlisle at about 9 pm on 31 March when she was struck by a Mitsubishi Pajero near the roundabout at the junction of Bishopsgate Street and Oats Street. A police spokesman said that Ms Morgado was trapped underneath the Pajero and dragged 100 metres. She received extensive injuries, including severe burns and lacerations to her arms, hands and face. The driver failed to stop, leaving the cyclist shocked and injured. Following police inquiries, an 86-year-old Carlisle man was charged, but for poor Ms Morgado it's no superannuation, no insurance and a government who doesn't care. Those opposite are completely out of touch with how we best represent and best protect our most innocent youth in the workplace in our society. They don't have an understanding of how to protect people. Another good example is of a worker, Mr Klooger, who fought for these same workers in food delivery to get the right of superannuation and, yes, insurance, in what is a highly dangerous industry. Mr Klooger was terminated because he agitated for public complaint about aspects of the rates paid by Foodora to delivery riders and drivers. He also set up an online chatroom over WhatsApp which had more than 250 riders as its members. They used the platform to discuss the company's low pay, working conditions and lack of superannuation. The government sits on its hands. It has no policy, no strategy to turn around and protect those workers in our society that are in a situation where they don't have superannuation, don't have insurance and, as you've seen in those two examples, are certainly poorly paid. In Mr Klooger's case, he was paid as little as $14 an hour. This is a government that has no connection with what young people under the age of 25 are receiving and suffering and the sorts of challenges they have. To sit and hear lectures from the government about how they're looking after the youth—well, if you want to start looking after the youth, start moving forward on the right sorts of entitlements for food delivery workers, for Uber drivers, for people in the rideshare industry. These people have been consistently and constantly ripped off by your buddies. I say 'your buddies', because you're doing nothing about it. The government has called this 'putting members' interests first'—this constant Orwellian language that they keep coming up with. Put Ms Morgado and Mr Klooger first. Put thousands of workers who are under 25 who are being ripped off first. Give them rights, give them superannuation and, certainly, give them insurance. We've seen from the Liberal Party the novelty in acknowledging that working Australians have a legitimate interest in superannuation, let alone that those members' interests should be put first. Close to 24 years ago to the day, the then member for Warringah, Mr Tony Abbott, told parliament on 25 September: Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people … The government is making us worse off now so that it will be better off in the future. Almost 20 years on, to the month, the Abbott government struck a deal with the Palmer United Party to freeze compulsory superannuation contributions at 9.5 per cent for seven years. That hurt young people. Put members' interests first. Put under-25s' interests first. Put the community's interests first. The Liberal Party's war on superannuation is not so much in the past. When the legislation was up for debate in the other place, Liberal members of parliament were putting the case that we should cancel those delayed superannuation increases. These are the increases which are supposed to be guaranteed by legislation and due to take place. We heard Senator Bragg use his maiden speech in this chamber to call for superannuation to be voluntary for low-income earners, just like insurance for under-25s. The Liberal Party seem to think that the only way to increase the wages for Australians is to slash their entitlements for retirement. The Liberal Party don't have a wages policy, they don't have a plan on how to stimulate the economy for growth and prosperity, they don't have an energy policy and they don't have a plan to govern. So what do they do? They fall back on attacking workers rights yet again. How about they start doing an 'ensuring company integrity' bill and start making sure these companies that are stealing from workers are held to account in a proper and fit way and, most importantly, that there is the opportunity for these workers to receive superannuation—absolutely clearly defined that contract workers, workers that are contractors and employees, have rights and insurance. Why don't they start saying that the real challenge we have on wages stagnation is that they haven't got a policy on how to give people rights in their workplace, rather than turning around with Orwellian language and a policy that steals from working people and people under the age of 25 and puts them in a situation of destitution for the rest of their lives and, of course, puts a financial burden on their families and loved ones? It was Labor that introduced compulsory superannuation and Labor that defended it from the coalition's attempts to undermine it universally. That is because we believe that every Australian deserves to retire with dignity and independence, and our superannuation system is critical to that. But it is critical to that for all Australians. It's critical to that as a matter of proper government policy. It's critical to that for under-25s and many of those thousands of workers at the moment. In the case I raised in regard to Ms Morgado, there is a call-out from people raising money online for her through Megaphone, a workplace activist group within Victoria. We have to go out with a begging bowl because the government won't legislate protections for working people. This is a government that sits on its hands whilst the Reserve Bank tells it that it needs to be stimulating wage increases. It is a government that has failed to turn around and have policies that can make a difference for all. 09:44 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank those senators who have contributed to this debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. [09:49]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

44 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McAllister, J McDonald, S McGrath, J (teller) McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Sheldon, A Smith, DA Smith, M Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J 8 NOES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 4 09:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) to (16) on sheet TW114 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 13), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add: ; or (e) a member to whom the dangerous occupation exception applies (see section 68AAF). (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 29), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add: ; or (e) a member to whom the dangerous occupation exception applies (see section 68AAF). (4) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 35), after item 3, insert: 3A After section 68AAE Insert: 68AAF Dangerous occupation exception (1) The dangerous occupation exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund to, or in respect of, whom a benefit is provided by the fund under a choice product or MySuper product held by the member by taking out or maintaining insurance if: (a) the trustee or trustees of the fund make an election under this section that members holding that product will be covered by a dangerous occupation exception if they are employed in an occupation specified in the election; and (b) the election is in force; and (c) the member is employed in an occupation specified in the election; and (d) it is reasonable to expect that some or all of the contributions paid into the product will be paid in respect of that employment. (2) The trustee, or trustees, of a regulated superannuation fund may elect that members holding a choice product or MySuper product specified in the election are covered by a dangerous occupation exception if they are employed in an occupation specified in the election and either: (a) a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia has certified that: (i) based on rates of death, or death and total and permanent disability; and (ii) using information from the most recent 5 years in relation to Australian occupations; the occupation is in the riskiest quintile of Australian occupations; or (b) the occupation is as an emergency services worker (as defined for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011). (3) The election must be made in writing. (4) The election is in force during the period: (a) beginning on the day on which a copy of the election is given to APRA; and (b) ending on the day on which the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund give APRA notice in writing that the election is withdrawn. (5) As soon as practicable after the election is made, a copy of the election must be: (a) published on the trustee's, or each trustee's, website; and (b) given to APRA. (6) Within 28 days of the dangerous occupation exception applying to a member of the fund, the trustee or trustees must give the member: (a) a notice in writing stating that the trustee or trustees have elected to treat the member's occupation as a dangerous occupation, and are providing the benefit under the choice product or MySuper product by taking out or maintaining insurance; and (b) details of the annual cost to the member of providing the benefit under the choice product or MySuper product by taking out or maintaining insurance; and (c) details of how the member may elect to have the benefit cease. (7) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section affects the obligations of a trustee under the covenants referred to in section 52, or of a director of a corporate trustee under the covenants referred to in section 52A. Note: For example, under paragraph 52(7) (c) each trustee is subject to a covenant to only offer or acquire insurance of a particular kind, or at a particular level, if the cost of the insurance does not inappropriately erode the retirement income of beneficiaries. (5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 5 and 6), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 February 2020". (6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 7), omit "1July 2019", substitute "1November 2019". (7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 11), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 14), omit "1 August 2019", substitute "1 December 2019". (9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 18), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 February 2020". (10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 23), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 9), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (12) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 20), omit "1July 2019", substitute "1November 2019". (13) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 24), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (14) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 27), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 February 2020". (15) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 30), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 November 2019". (16) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 February 2020". 09:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want firstly to ask the minister what their official definition is for a 'dangerous occupation'. 09:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria A dangerous occupation is defined as a top-quintile occupation according to actuarial data or WorkSafe data. 09:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 'Top quintile'—so a top 20 per cent occupation—but in your response what kind of occupation did you mean? Are you talking about workplace incidents within various occupations? Could you be a bit more specific. 09:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria A top-quintile occupation, as in an emergency services worker, is as defined in the Work Health and Safety Act, or it is an occupation certified by a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia to be a top-quintile risky occupation, based on rates of death, or death and total permanent disability, and that's using information from five years in relation to Australian occupations. 09:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I wish to ask a question of the minister. It strikes me that the amendment that you propose assumes that trustees will have complete information about individual fund members, their occupation and, therefore, the associated occupational risks. It is my understanding that that is not actually the case and the funds will only have the information that the employers give them, by law, which requires the employer to provide the worker's name, date of birth and address. Funds are able to supplement that, but that would be time consuming and imperfect. What is your expectation in how funds will obtain the necessary information to make the assessment that's imagined in the amendment you propose? 09:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The trustees can access the information through the Actuaries Institute of Australia or through WorkSafe data, which is publicly available or, alternatively, they can have an actuarial certified list of risky occupations. 09:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I understand, based on your answers to Senator Whish-Wilson, how the occupations are to be established. I guess it is the relationship between individual members and this occupational list. I'm trying to understand, in practical terms, what a fund will do to establish that relationship and that connection for each of the members of their fund? 09:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Funds can choose to use that exception and they can ask members what their occupation is. 09:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Are there any provisions in the amendment that you propose that place any obligations on employers to provide information to funds when requested? You would imagine that this is another feature similar to protecting members' interests arrangements, where funds are required to individually contact members and obtain additional information? 09:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It is part of a trustee's duty. 09:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm interested in whether you think this is actually workable. I suppose informal feedback would be (a) there's a lack of clarity about what's imagined here and (b) some concern that it may not be workable because the administrative impediments to obtaining individualised information about every fund member of the kind that you anticipate are really so burdensome that these exceptions will never actually be able to be practically utilised. 09:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We have feedback to us that this is a workable solution. 09:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8766 together. These are amendments to the government's amendments on sheet TW114. (1) Amendment (5), omit "February", substitute "April". (2) Amendment (9), omit "February", substitute "April". (3) Amendment (14), omit "February", substitute "April". (4) Amendment (16), omit "February", substitute "April". The reason we're doing this is it gives organisations more time to comply. This is important legislation to the workers and it shouldn't be rushed. 09:58 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Could I ask why high-risk occupations were targeted in this amendment in the first place? Is the government satisfied that, because you work in a high-risk occupation, you're more likely to be injured, permanently disabled or killed outside of your workplace? The issue we're dealing with here actually fundamentally is the default life insurance is needed for workers outside of their workplace. They're covered during their hours of work in their workplace by a different set of protections. Is there some kind of study that shows that those in higher risk occupations are more likely to die on weekends or outside of their work hours and workplace? 09:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator Whish-Wilson, there isn't a study that I'm aware of. The government has introduced these amendments because it's listened to concerns raised by industry and representatives that individuals in high-risk occupations are likely to benefit from default insurance and superannuation as they may face barriers accessing insurance elsewhere. The government has therefore decided to make available an exception to the opt-in changes for members in dangerous occupations who are under 25 years old or who have a low-balance account where the trustees elect to apply it. 10:00 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Thank you, Minister. I appreciate you're busy, and nor are you likely to look at the detail of my speech on the second reading debate, but the Greens did go to some lengths to try and get the issue of insurance payouts that we're dealing with here today quantified for these cohorts—for the under-25s and the under $6,000. The PBO costing that we got, which I hope you're aware of, assuming the bill passes unamended, would see 25-year-olds and people with low account balances missing out on up to $5.8 billion in payments over 10 years. The PBO was able to get the actuarial data showing that there have been payouts of $5.8 billion. We quantified that as a simple average of $600 million a year. Firstly, do you think that's a reasonable estimate of the at-risk cohort here? In other words, young Australians and low-income Australians are going to miss out on the safety net that John Howard brought in to provide them with. And, secondly, have you applied any kind of analysis across historic payments to determine how many of those payments were made to workers in so-called high-risk occupations and how many were made to workers outside high-risk occupations? 10:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I recognise the numbers you have from the PBO; however, there are billions of dollars being paid every year in insurance premiums by those under 25 or those with balances below $6,000 for insurances that they don't know they have, that they don't necessarily need and that often they can't claim on. The second part of your question was whether we have any data. The Productivity Commission has recognised that insurance is not necessarily good value for those that are young and have low balances. Indeed, Rice Warner, the actuaries, had some data to demonstrate that particularly young women, when they pay their insurance premiums, are often paying 330 per cent of the value that they get from those insurances. 10:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania That wasn't my question, with all respect, Minister. That's the other side of the equation, which I'm happy to deal with and ask you questions on whether you think young Australians and low-income Australians are getting value for money out of this system. I appreciate that's what you're focusing on. But my question is very important. The PBO has quantified for us that $600 million a year of payouts occur in this country to this cohort of vulnerable Australians. Do you agree that's a reasonable quantification? Has the Treasury done any of their own analysis on these payouts? Given we were able to get this kind of data, and what we're dealing with is amendments for a high-risk cohort to stay in this pooled system, what does the data tell us about so-called lower-risk occupations? Surely we should be able to look at the history of payouts under this scheme and determine whether, indeed, it's efficient and necessary to be carving out a high-risk cohort? 10:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I should emphasise here that there's absolutely nothing stopping someone who takes risks outside of work from getting life insurance and that anybody who wants life insurance can have life insurance. This is simply an opt-in mechanism rather than an opt-out mechanism. Anyone can still get group insurance through their superannuation. I point out to the senator again that both the Productivity Commission and Rice Warner have said that there is low value for insurance for people in this cohort. 10:04 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, I understand that the political pragmatic reality of this place is that sometimes the government has to cut deals to get their legislation through here. But I urge you to consider sending this off to the committee to get this properly looked at, because I know it is going to be very difficult to administer these amendments. There are considerable uncertainties around whether the data even exists to carve out high-risk cohorts. More importantly, uncertainties exist about whether that is the right thing to be doing, considering that, according to your own benchmark, four-fifths of this cohort won't have default insurance. The royal commission into financial services has taught us all that Australians aren't financially literate. I bet there are plenty of senators in here who are not financially literate either and don't actually make those choices the way you might describe the perfect free market with perfect information. The biggest problem we face is getting people more active—you understand this yourself with your background—and getting people to spend more time thinking about these things and making those informed choices. We can't assume that this cohort are going to make an informed choice to opt in. History tells us that. It's an absolutely black-and-white fact that we need to consider. Even assuming that young people do make the decision to opt in, I want to pull you up on your statement there that insurance is available to all this cohort. I did read into my speech on the second reading that we have received information that there is no guarantee that some of this cohort will have access to life insurance or permanent disability insurance outside their workplace. Insurance companies themselves have said that they will have to go through their underwriting processes. At the moment you have it. It is part of a safety net that was set up by your government, the Liberal government, years ago to protect vulnerable Australians. Can you assure the chamber today that there is a guarantee that young Australians who are excluded when the default system changes are actually going to get coverage when they apply to an insurance company? Can you guarantee that to the Senate here today? Because that is the current position: you are guaranteed a safety net right now. Are you going to be guaranteed that following this legislation today? 10:07 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government is not aware of any evidence that would suggest that it would be harder for members to get default cover once they turn 25 or their balance reaches $6,000. In fact, some funds already offer insurance at similar trigger points without the need for underwriting. The government doesn't anticipate that the terms on which insurance will be provided to people once they turn 25 will be materially different from the current arrangements. Certainly it is the case at AustralianSuper, which was the fund that kicked off this process. However, the government will monitor the implementation of these changes and will consider the need for further actions should trustees' actions not provide people with appropriate insurance in the future. I should remind Senator Whish-Wilson that these measures and this bill have already been examined by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, not once but twice. It was originally examined as part of the protecting your super package last year, including at public hearings, and again earlier this year as part of this particular bill. Both times the committee recommended the Senate pass the measures. 10:08 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Having been a previous member of that committee, I am aware that this has been through an inquiry. But my understanding is that this point was raised repeatedly during the committee inquiry and hasn't been addressed in this legislation. I would very briefly read to you the legal advice the Greens got: Trustees will carefully need to consider their obligations under the insurance covenants to determine whether it is permissible for those members who would like to opt in to be included in the same pool as those who are automatically opted in. Furthermore, trustees will need to determine whether those members who choose to opt in are permitted to do so under the terms of the group insurance policy negotiated between the fund and the insurer. For example, the cost of the policy to the fund may increase as a result of select members opting in. The trustee would need to determine whether this is consistent with the obligations under the insurance covenants. Where the trustee determines that it is not appropriate, different group insurance policies may need to be negotiated or, alternatively, insurers may require policies to be individually evaluated and underwritten. This point was raised during the committee inquiry, and I still haven't got any sense as to whether there's a guarantee that people who are currently insured who are vulnerable—the most vulnerable cohort in this country—under a safety net set up by your previous government, the Howard government, are going to be guaranteed to be able to get coverage. Perhaps if Senator McAllister doesn't ask it, I'd also like to know what kinds of projections you have around the increased cost of coverage once this scheme is changed. 10:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Members under 25 are more likely to receive little or no value from default insurance policies through superannuation. That's what the Productivity Commission found. In fact, Rice Warner research indicated that those under 25 are paying up to 500 per cent of the true premium. That's what we're trying to protect people from. The government's changes will better safeguard Australians superannuation savings from the excessive erosion that can occur as a result of insurance premiums for inappropriate cover. We will also monitor the way this legislation is implemented. 10:11 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister, I asked you earlier about the capacity for funds to discharge the obligation to obtain information under the scheme as you propose in the amendments. I asked you about it in the capacity that you will obtain information. Can I ask you to contemplate a scenario where a trustee makes a decision not to bring an individual member into group insurance on an opt-out basis, and they make that decision based on erroneous information that they hold about that person's risk profile? Is that trustee then vulnerable to legal action from a dependent who subsequently finds themselves without any benefit in the event of a death? 10:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We haven't quite on that issue, and, according to information from ASIC, no. 10:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales May I ask you to reiterate that answer: according to information from whom? 10:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The information was sought—that very question was asked informally. I haven't got it in writing officially from ASIC, but, yes, they have said that in their opinion there is little—no—chance of that happening. 10:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Does that not strike you as a problem for individuals who might be incorrectly excluded from insurance? I think the intent of the government amendments is to deal with the very real problems that have been presented around this scheme as they relate to people in high-risk occupations. I think that the government's amendments acknowledge that people in high-risk occupations ought to be covered by group insurance and seek to provide a pathway by which, under certain circumstances, trustees may bring this circumstance about. The whole point of that is to protect a cohort of people who are in high-risk occupations and who risk either having financial detriment arising from some accident or injury to themselves or having independents who are unable to support themselves in the event of a tragedy. If that's the objective, are you not concerned that individual trustees may find themselves making assessments about individual risk profiles without adequate information and, on your advice, will suffer no legal consequence if they make a mistake? 10:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The aim of the government's amendments was to put a bright line marker on what was and what wasn't a risky occupation. I understand that Labor would have preferred an amendment that included entire industries. Unfortunately, with that, that didn't identify what a high-risk occupation was and what a high-risk occupation wasn't, so you would have found that a receptionist at a construction firm would have been included as a high-risk occupation, whereas it's those kinds of people who are exactly the ones we're trying to protect with this legislation. 10:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales With respect, I wasn't asking what you consider to be the shortcomings of what you believe to be the Labor approach. I was asking about the shortcomings in the scheme that you're outlining in the amendments that are before us today. So I ask again: if you're intent is to make sure that trustees do include people in high-risk occupations in group insurance on an opt-out basis, are you not concerned that, on your own advice just now to the Senate, there are no legal consequences if they fail to do that or if they make a set of decisions on incomplete or inadequate information? 10:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What we have done with this amendment is consult with industry and ask them exactly what it is that they need. They have said that this is an adequate amendment and that they can implement this amendment. 10:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales With respect, Minister, I suppose we are receiving different advice, which is that there are real impediments to trustees obtaining the necessary information to make the decisions as imagined in your scheme. I'm asking you whether you have any concerns about that. I know that you've worked in the sector; you often make that point in debates about superannuation. It just strikes me that what you've established is an arrangement where funds are already writing letters to one cohort of people and trying to get them to write back and opt in. We all know how difficult it is to get anybody to engage, on a paper basis, with questions about long-range financial planning. That's not an optimal set of relationships between trustees and their members. On top of that, you've now established a circumstance where the only way that a trustee may ensure that a group of vulnerable workers are provided with group insurance is, by your evidence, to individually write to them and ask them about their occupation so that can then be matched up against some set of categories that has been established elsewhere. It seems a very clunky way to proceed, and the advice to Labor from many of the stakeholders we are speaking to is that it will present real impediments—that this is going to be very difficult to implement and will not provide the sorts of protections that you assert it will provide for vulnerable people. 10:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator McAllister. As you would know, trustees of superannuation funds have a best interests duty; they have to know their members. This is rather basic information. We would expect that trustees, if they were adhering to their best interests duty, would seek this sort of information from their members as a matter of course. It's extraordinary that trustees, potentially, have been extracting insurance premiums from these members for products that they, potentially, don't need or don't want without this being a problem. I would imagine this will be something that will, in fact, allow trustees to get a better idea of exactly who their members are. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Does any other senator wish the call, or shall the question be put? 10:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales If we are moving now to deal with the amendment from Senator Roberts, I should indicate that Labor supports the amendment. It will ensure that workers in four different high-risk industries are able to be covered by default insurance. We would like to see further amendment to ensure that coverage can be extended to workers in other high-risk industries, but we will be supporting the One Nation amendment. 10:18 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want to come back to the PBO costing the Greens had, which suggested that, if the bill went through unamended, $600 million per annum would be denied in payouts to this most vulnerable cohort. They're real numbers that the PBO has been able to obtain from industry sources. Minister, does $600 million per annum—nearly $6 billion over 10 years—strike you as a lot of payments? You mentioned in your statement that many young people or low-income people who are paying these fees don't need this cover. Does $600 million per annum on average suggest to you that there are many in this vulnerable cohort who do need this insurance cover? What do you say to that historical data that suggests this is actually an important safety net? 10:19 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government's concern is about the billions of dollars that these young people and people with low superannuation balances are having eroded from their superannuation accounts every single year for insurances that they may not know that they have, that they probably don't need and that they may not be able to claim on. That's what we're trying to deal with here. 10:19 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania That may be the case, but, clearly, the death of an individual, regardless of what occupation—whether it is high risk or in the four-fifths of this cohort who won't have any cover under this amendment—and especially if they have dependants, is a tragedy. The Productivity Commission figures were a long-term projection, looking at weighted data across 15 or 20 years of estimates. I know you understand why insurance is necessary, why a pooled-risk system is necessary and why insurance actually developed; it's for this very reason. But do you accept the reason we have a pooled-risk system and the reason your government set this up in the first place? I remind the chamber again that it was Mr Howard who felt it was necessary to have a safety net in place for the most vulnerable cohort. Do you accept that you are kind of turning your back on the entire premise of why we need a pooled-risk system in this country? 10:21 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you for the question. The aim of this legislation is to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable, who are young and who do have low balances, are not essentially subsidising those people who do need insurance, who are older and who are far more likely to claim. In fact, this legislation is going to save an estimated $3 billion in insurance premiums in the first 12 months alone for around five million individuals. While I understand that one death is always one death too many, this is going to save millions of people billions of dollars. 10:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania But insurance is obviously one of those things where it's easy to say you don't need it until you need it. Nobody knows what the future holds. Clearly, $600 million per annum in payouts to vulnerable cohorts around this country is a significant amount of money. I'm just considering the corporate knowledge and the history of this legislation coming back to this chamber. It was only a few months ago that the Greens had this carved out in an agreement with your government to pass more broad super reforms, which I think we all agree were a good thing to do. We were very concerned about the loss of the safety net for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Why hasn't the Treasury looked at the data, or why can't you provide it today? Similar to the PBO costing that we've had, why can't your government substantiate what the payouts have been to vulnerable Australians under this scheme? Or can you? 10:23 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I remind you again that, according to the Productivity Commission, on average insurance premiums of around $340 per annum per person over their lifetime will be saved from this measure. Rice Warner said that premiums were at around 500 per cent of the value they in fact offer. We agree that group insurance has some value and that group insurance is based on a theory of cross-subsidisation. Some cross-subsidisation of course is necessary. But we are trying to protect the most vulnerable young people from unfair terms which exist at the moment and to protect those who are having their balances eroded away. 10:24 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is probably more just a comment from me: you haven't been able to answer my question, Minister, so I just want to get on the record that I have to assume you don't have that data and nor has Treasury even bothered to look. It's a surprise: $600 million is a lot of money to pay out to vulnerable Australians. In other words, people—the cohort that we're excluding—are using this permanent disability protection cover life insurance. It's working and I would have thought that's a significant number in terms of the payout to people who are actually benefiting from this system. 10:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister, I have been pursuing a line of questioning around the information available to funds. I do maintain that it is impractical for funds to individually write to members and seek information about occupations, not least because people's occupational profile changes with some regularity and it seems a rather clunky way to implement the government's intent. Did the government give consideration to allowing funds to access ATO occupational data? There are already arrangements for funds to interact with the ATO to obtain information about their members as part of SuperMatch, and I just wonder whether you gave any thought to ATO data being provided to allow funds to implement the arrangements set out in your amendment. 10:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No. 10:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales You seem strangely indifferent to the practical problems that I'm presenting. Labor agrees with the intent of the legislation. We are concerned that there are some likely-to-be-unintended consequences of the government's approach. We've been constructively engaging, I think, to try to address those unintended consequences. This seems to be quite a big one. The government has acknowledged that high-risk occupations are a problem. I am saying to you that I think a process where individual letters are sent out to members to obtain data about their occupation so that they can meet this test just seems overly burdensome and cumbersome, particularly where there is an existing dataset held by the ATO. 10:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's entirely up to trustees whether or not they use this exception. They must act reasonably, as you would understand, based on the information that is available to them. They can simply ask their members, and it's up to the members to provide the information. Some funds are already doing this. They already have this information. 10:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales You made specific mention of acting reasonably. Could you just clarify what you mean by that. 10:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thinking acting reasonably would speak for itself. 10:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, perhaps I can ask more directly. You said trustees must act reasonably. I just wonder what that statement of their obligations is grounded in? Are you saying that that's just a general obligation under the act? 10:27 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Each fund is different and they must act in their best interests. They have a best interests duty and they must act in the best interests of their members. I think that they understand fully what that means. 10:27 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, there was some media reporting about you and the Treasurer—obviously, both of you were Melbourne based—meeting group insurers. I understand that they've obviously raised concerns about the removal of this legislation, and that's been reported on a number of times from different angles. Would you agree that group insurers—MetLife, AIA, TIA—are likely to lose out once this legislation is passed today? 10:28 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We assume that this would to some extent disrupt a business model that has been running for some time; but, as we have said over and over again, these deals between insurance companies and superannuation funds are opaque and quite complex. So you would imagine that there would be some disruption. 10:28 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Thanks, Minister. If there were some disruption, as you put it, who would likely win out as a result of there being less group insurance? Would you accept the proposition that retail insurers such as the banks and AMP are most likely to benefit from this legislation? 10:29 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, I don't think that's the case. In fact, I think that perhaps it will create a more stringent relationship between the trustees and their insurance firms. Perhaps it might encourage the insurance companies to sharpen their pencils somewhat. 10:29 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania That may be the case. But do you think it's a fair comment that in this country there's been a proxy war going on between group insurers and retail insurers over this superannuation pool? And do you think it's fair that you've been seen to be going in to bat for retail insurers at the expense of group insurance? 10:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'm not entirely sure what your question is asking of me or of what relevance it is to this bill. 10:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I believe it's very relevant and very important. I always like to follow the money. Being an economist, I understand that economics is all about studying human behaviour and incentives. I know—and those who have been following the industry know, and you've worked in it and know it very well—that the banks and AMP have been losing superannuation customers hand over fist in recent years, and a lot of that is thanks to the royal commission. Here's your government in their corner again, coming to their aid with some legislation that's going to open up a new pool of potential revenue for them. If that is the case, I have concerns that you're doing their bidding in this place. I'm just explaining my motivation for asking that question. I would hope that the logic behind this legislation—and, to be clear, the Greens have opposed this all along—is that you actually do believe you are doing a solid for young and vulnerable Australians by reducing the fees that they have to pay on superannuation; that it's not really about just opening up a whole new set of markets for the big banks and insurers in this country. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU I'll take that as a statement unless, Minister, you wish to respond. 10:31 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, if I can. Senator Whish-Wilson, I think you have entirely missed the point and premise of this legislation. It is to look after vulnerable and young people to ensure that they have a better chance of saving for their retirement and increasing their retirement savings, getting their retirement savings to a point where they have a critical mass and can benefit from compound interest. It is to get them to that critical mass. This has absolutely nothing to do with an association with any particular firm or any particular tribe in this industry. It is entirely about looking after the most vulnerable cohorts in our society, who, at the moment, are unfairly disadvantaged by the superannuation system and by the insurance sector. 10:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I return again to the questions of information and trustee responsibility. Can I put a scenario to you. Say a fund covers a workplace with 10 office workers and a security guard. The trustee decides that it's a low-risk workplace, based on the information that the employer provides, and then the security guard is involved in a tragedy at work and his dependants have no life insurance cover because of that trustee's decision. Has the trustee acted reasonably in excluding the security guard from cover, and are they exposed, under that scenario, to legal action? 10:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I would imagine that if a security guard had appeared in the top quintile of risky occupations then the superannuation fund would have approached that particular member and told them that they intended to make them opt out of, as opposed to opting in to, their insurance arrangements. So they would be covered by this. 10:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am concerned about your working assumptions about individual decision-making, financial literacy and engagement with financial questions. This goes a little to some of the questions that Senator Whish-Wilson was asking. Over the last four or five years in this place, the Senate Standing Committees on Economics have considered a range of scenarios where, essentially, consumer behaviour is suboptimal because humans are just naturally not inclined to deal with complex questions around probability and risk, particularly where they run over the long term. In the scenario we're talking about, we're talking about a young security guard, under 26, who's been classified incorrectly as low risk on the basis of information provided by the employer to the trustee. There are two questions arising from this. Has the trustee acted reasonably, and are they exposed to action from dependants? That's a narrow legal consequence and a broader policy consequence. Are you comfortable, really, with these scenarios, where the trustees are so dependent on very active engagement from young people with their superannuation insurance arrangements, when all of the evidence before us, over many years, indicates that that is actually just not the real-world experience of how people, and young people in particular, engage with financial products? 10:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator McAllister. As you know, we've discussed out of sight of this place that I too have a passion for an improvement in the financial literacy and capability in Australians. I think, if you reverse your cameo on its head, you might say that trustees who have a best interest duty have an obligation to better understand the situation of their members; and, while the real world, as it is, may not look like that, perhaps it should. Perhaps this legislation will encourage those trustees to take a better interest in the members that they have, to make sure that the product they're offering is entirely appropriate, rather than obfuscating that responsibility, which seems to be happening now, and relying on the opacity and complexity of this industry to simply reap the fees for insurance premiums that these people possibly don't want, don't need, might not be able to claim on and don't understand. 10:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister, we probably don't need to go over the reasons why it would be useful to address balance deterioration and erosion. We're on board with that. Labor have given an indication that we're supportive of those objectives. But I go again to the practical mechanisms. There are 1.9 million workers affected by the changes that are being proposed. The trustees have a few months to sort this out. The model that you suggest is that the way they will sort this out is through obtaining individual information from members, and the cohort of members we're talking about are not entirely but largely people under 26 years old. I feel as though you're swimming against the tide on this one. We have all of the data about the level of engagement. Is it not government's responsibility to design a policy intervention that does address the world as it is? I applaud your interest in increasing financial literacy across the board. I feel like that's going to be quite a long journey, and, in the meantime, we have some very practical proposals before us. Your expectation is that funds are going to sort this out by individually engaging members under 26 in the next few months to obtain information from them about their occupation so they can decide whether or not they're eligible to be in an opt-out fund. I think that is impractical and unworkable and, as I put it to you, it seems particularly so in the case where there is an existing dataset at the ATO that could have been accessed, and you tell me that that wasn't even contemplated. This doesn't seem like policymaking that actually responds to the problem, or the world, and I just question why it is that the government is so stubbornly pressing on with this without dealing with some really practical things that are being raised. We're not talking about a major ideological conflict; we're just trying to talk about a workable solution. I am puzzled, bewildered, surprised, that I can't get more engagement on this informational problem that we're coming up against. I don't think the pathway you propose will provide trustees with the necessary information to make this decision in the time frame suggested by the bill. 10:38 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator McAllister, I understand exactly where you're coming from. But, quite frankly, as I mentioned before, I worked in this industry, and one of the problems that trustees have or the industry complains about is disengagement. One of the things that this chamber complains about is disengagement from the superannuation system. Surely you would think that the superannuation funds would want to reach out to their members, would want to find out more about them, would want to take this opportunity. That's exactly what we've asked them to do. I agree with you; I am puzzled, bewildered and surprised why anybody should be resisting this opportunity to understand more about their members, because that's part of their best interests duty. The winners here are the members. That's who we're here for. 10:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't think that it is reasonable to say that trustees, particularly in some of the better performing funds, are not interested or engaging with their members. In fact, the written evidence to the committee around this bill, from a number of trustees, was that they had reached out as part of the Protecting Your Super reforms, they got high levels of responses relative to other kinds of things that they tried to do and they worked very hard to engage on the questions that the government has required them to engage on in the way anticipated by the last tranche of legislation that we dealt with. But there is a limit to how this approach can work, and you know there's a limit. You know that there are only so many email blasts that you can send out that anyone at all will respond to. I do think that government has an obligation to deal with the informational overload that consumers experience in relation to a whole range of things, specifically in relation to financial products. I come back, again, to the counterfactual. There are other ways that funds could be enabled to receive the data that would allow them to make responsible decisions consistent with their duties as trustees, and your advice to the chamber is that government didn't contemplate these. Your advice is that, instead, you've stubbornly persisted with a mechanism that is clunky and difficult and swims against the tide of human psychological reality. Humans are not going to engage. People are not going to engage with the process as you describe it. It just seems to me clunky and difficult. I'm not sure that we're going to get very much further on it, but I do wish to place on record how impractical this is and my disappointment that government is being so stubborn in just dealing with real-world realities on this front. 10:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Senator McAllister, if a member is contacted and ignores the trustee, that falls back to the member. The trustee should have email, they should have a phone, and members can be contacted in the workplace. There are lots of different ways that members can be contacted. Indeed, if trustees are meeting their best interests duty, they should be contacting their members. I don't think that information overload on young people is a good enough reason to say it's too hard and we'll simply charge members for insurance premiums for a cover that they don't want, don't need, might not know they have and possibly can't claim on. 10:42 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Has the government done any forecasts or have any projections or any expectation, or, perhaps, even industry feedback to you, as to how many Australians in this cohort are likely to opt in once the laws change? 10:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria That's entirely up to the fund and entirely up to the member. 10:42 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Of course it is. You mentioned earlier you think this bill is about protecting this cohort of young and low-income Australians. My whole point has been that actually you are taking away protections that are already in place, protections that were put in place deliberately, by Mr John Howard, your previous Liberal Prime Minister, to give vulnerable cohorts a safety net. I don't think any of us can deny that was the motivation behind this. Whether that's costing too much money is another question entirely. I was interested in your talking with Senator McAllister and your exchange there. You talked about trustees having information about their members and understanding more about their members. I don't think we can assume, by the way, that trustees will always act in the best interests of their members. The royal commission has shown that that hasn't always been the case. I hope it will be, going forward. You also mentioned cross-subsidisation. You mentioned that's the kind of logic in taking away compulsory fees, the default position. Why wouldn't you, as a policy solution, have just put up legislation that makes trustees and group insurers reflect the risks of these cohorts in their pricing? That's what insurance companies do. That's how actuarial studies started—with the birth of the insurance industry in Scotland many hundreds of years ago. It's all about pricing risk. Why are those cohorts paying what they're paying? Why are they being gouged so much by insurance companies? Wouldn't a more neat solution be to have low-income and younger Australians pay lower premiums and have higher-income and older Australians pay a higher premium to reflect where they are in their life and those risks? Why is it that none of that pricing is actually occurring at the moment? 10:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'm not sure that's entirely germane to this bill. As you would know, that's the premise upon which group insurance is based upon. 10:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It is the premise upon which group insurance is based, but that's the premise that you're trying to dismantle here, if I can point that out to you. The point of group insurance is to help provide that safety net. That was why your previous Prime Minister put this in place. What I'm suggesting is that we are about to pass legislation on the government policy that, I think, both the Labor Party and the Greens feel is unworkable and is fundamentally removing a safety net for vulnerable Australians, and it could be done in a better way. Once again, I understand the political realities of what we're dealing with here. You want to get this legislation through. You've committed to it; it is your policy. Even though you carved it out under a deal with the Greens, you've brought it back and we have it here before us today. You are going to be making hundreds if not thousands of public servants and others enact a policy that doesn't appear to be workable. You do not appear to have done the research and collected the data necessary to understand the implications of this policy. I go back to the point that $600 million of payouts have been occurring. You don't even seem to know what occupations those payouts have occurred under. The reason I raise this issue—I will get to a question in a second—is that for the four-fifths of this cohort who will go to opt-in, so they won't be under the status quo of a default, there doesn't seem to be any understanding of whether they're just as much at risk outside the workplace as the high-risk occupations are. As far as I can tell, no work has been done on whether, if I work in a call centre, I'm as likely to die tragically up a ladder on the weekend doing some home renovations as if I'm a tradie or a construction worker who might be considered to be high risk. In fact I would say, conversely—I suppose I am being opinionated here—that a tradie in a high-risk occupation would probably have a better idea about what they were doing if they were renovating their home on a weekend than somebody like me who doesn't know about that stuff. There just doesn't seem to be any logic behind what you're doing. There's no evidence of a correlation between claims. You don't seem to even have the data on who has and hasn't been claiming. Are the majority of people who've claimed the $600 million a year falling in the cohort of high-risk occupations, or are they not? That to me is the most telling thing. That data is available, and I would have at least expected Treasury to have done an analysis on that. If you could come in here and say, 'Senator, this is the breakdown of claims under group insurance for this cohort, and we can prove to you without a doubt that the most likely occupations to be claiming are these'—but you can't do that. On what basis should we be voting for your legislation today if you can't provide that kind of simple information? 10:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The amendments that the government has put forward are based on WorkSafe information, which actually does provide the information that you're seeking there. That's the best proxy we can possibly find, because essentially the data sits with the insurance company. As I said earlier, those insurance companies are very opaque about the information they have, and there are privacy issues around sharing it as well. What I can tell you, however, is that this legislation will save millions of people billions of dollars towards their retirement savings, because they have insurance at the moment that they don't want, don't need, don't know that they have and possibly can't claim on because there are other avenues to claim for accidents or potentially death. As you would know, just because you have a high-risk occupation doesn't necessarily mean that you need insurance. It's about the need for insurance. In fact, the high-risk occupations essentially are a proxy for need. 10:49 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Getting back to this issue of cross-subsidisation and the basis of insurance, you're essentially saying that this cohort is unnecessarily and inefficiently subsidising wealthier and older Australians. What work has the Treasury done on the impact of insurance premiums on other insurers outside this cohort? If this is going to take—I forgot the number you mentioned, Minister; perhaps you could refresh my memory when you stand up. You were saying this much money's going to be saved out of the system, but, on the whole basis of cross-subsidisation and risk pooling—the whole reason we have insurance in the first place—that is, therefore, leading to lower payments for other Australians. So what impact is that going to have on the payments for other Australians, and was that factored into the Productivity Commission's estimates? 10:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Yes, you're right. Cross-subsidisation is the foundation of group insurance. However, the reason why we have brought forward this legislation is to look after the most vulnerable in that cohort. They are essentially cross-subsidising people who are more likely to claim unfairly and to an unreasonable extent. The government believes that cross-subsidies arising from inappropriate cover, where they exist, are unfair and shouldn't be allowed to continue. By unwinding these unfair arrangements, the government's reform package may result in a modest premium increase for the majority of cohorts. However, the ultimate effect of these reforms will be heavily dependent on how trustees and insurers respond to these new arrangements. The government's aware that certain funds are increasing premiums. In many cases, there are a number of reasons for that premium increase, including the unwinding of age based cross-subsidies, changes to the underlying cover of the policy and changes to the member base of the fund. 10:52 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Minister, I want to take you to the explanatory memorandum, which says: Financial Impact: The Bill is estimated to have a gain to the budget of $605.4 million over the forward estimates. Compliance cost impact is listed as 'medium to high'. I'd like you to confirm that figure and also explain the compliance cost impact. Secondly, the supplementary explanatory memorandum, in the government's amendments, says: The financial impact of the Amendments is estimated to be a cost of $55.1 million over four years to 2022-23. I'd like you to confirm those figures and give me an explanation of the 'medium to high' compliance cost impact. 10:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019. Senator Gallacher, yes, I can confirm those figures. The compliance figure is reflective of the cost of actually contacting the members. 10:53 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia So you've got forward estimates savings to the government paid for with a high-cost compliance impact on the people the legislation affects. Is that right? 10:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria No, they're two different things. 10:53 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Who's paying the additional cost impact? 10:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The compliance cost? 10:54 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia The compliance cost listed as 'medium to high'. 10:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The superannuation funds will likely incur a cost in contacting their members and delivering on their best interests duty. 10:54 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia They all said the time frame is going to significantly impact on their costs of contacting members, and this is an extraordinarily large exercise. So the guts of it are that the budget savings are $605 million plus an additional $55 million, all paid for by the superannuation funds. Is that correct? 10:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Sorry, Senator Gallacher, I think you've misunderstood the point and purpose of this bill. This is not a budgetary measure. We're trying to save young people and people with low superannuation balances from paying insurance premiums on products that they don't need, don't want, don't know that they have and are unlikely to be able to claim on. 10:55 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia It's what you said publicly, Minister. This is in your explanatory memorandum: The Bill is estimated to have a gain to the budget of $605.4 million over the forward estimates. My understanding is that the removal of the tax deductibility of these premiums will add $605.4 million to the government's bottom line, paid for by a medium- to high-cost compliance activity on the funds. That's what I'm trying to get some agreement on. 10:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator Gallacher. Obviously, there is going to be some cost to the superannuation funds themselves to reach out to their members. That's what they should be doing anyway as part of their business. We realise that there is going to be a greater compliance component, thanks to this bill, but again I point out to you that you seem to have missed the point. This is about protecting young members and protecting people on lower balances, ensuring that they're not having their retirement savings eroded by unnecessary insurance premiums. 10:56 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia That's a response, Minister, but I haven't missed the point at all. I am simply directing my query to a specific explanatory memorandum which forecasts savings to the government, essentially with higher cost compliance impacts on superannuation funds. I'll go to the other detail that you want to go to, but that is essentially the situation we're in at the moment. There is a medium to high compliance cost impact on superannuation funds and there is a saving to the forward estimates of $605 million. Are we in agreement on that? 10:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I can confirm that in this $2.9 trillion industry there is a compliance cost over 10 years of $2.85 million. 10:56 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia What's been put to me is that this legislation will have, as legislation often does, unintended consequences. It's been put to me that the cost of insurance for 25-plus-year-olds will increase, in some cases, by up to 14 per cent. That increase in that group life insurance policy will be deductible; have you done the sums on where that will impact on your projection of $605.4 million? If they get a higher deductibility because premiums have gone up as a result of this legislation then your savings may well be swinging in the breeze. 10:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It is included in the costing, but I would point out to you that the unintended consequences of not passing this bill and of not legislating are that millions of young people and people who are currently on low balances will not be able to reach that critical mass so that they can take advantage of compound interest. They will have lower savings in retirement; surely that is the objective of this bill? 10:58 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I understand that's the objective that you've promulgated. I'm not sure that it's actually going be the effect, because there are many people in the workforce—casual workers, women, low-income earners—who are never going to get anywhere near a retirement income equivalent to the pension from superannuation, let alone exceeding it. The whole value, in some cases, of this life TPD through the life of their employment is what they're interested in. You're taking a whole cohort who have $6,000 or less—someone who could be a new migrant to this country, a low-paid cleaner or a young worker. I understand clearly what you're promoting, but you have this awful responsibility as a minister: your own figures will tell you that 3½ per cent of this cohort, between 15 and 24, have dependants. Those are the ATO figures which you use to run your argument. My argument is this: if those people do not opt in and there is tragedy amongst those 3½ per cent, how are you going to live with that? You're saying that if they don't have an email address then that's their bad luck. 10:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I question the premise of your argument, and we also question the accuracy. The ATO have told us that 96 per cent of people in that age cohort don't have dependants. Theoretically, if you want to use that as a proxy for needing insurance, I think that that's a very good proxy. Our aim is to get as many of those vulnerable workers—those on low incomes, those with low balances—above that $6,000 critical mass as quickly as possible by reducing insurance premiums, by taking away insurance premiums for products that people don't know they have, don't understand and probably can't claim on. By taking away those insurance premiums until they reach that $6,000 critical mass we're helping them—in fact, we're encouraging them—to get ahead. 11:00 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia The figures that are promoted for TPI insurance for young people are in the order of $80 a year, or $1.11 a week. An extra $80 a year is going to be very beneficial, but I can't see how it's going to accelerate the boosting of their balance to over $6,000. What accelerates them to get over $6,000 in their account is getting paid their super on time, getting it paid in full and having a decent job that accrues a reasonable amount of super. Removing a benefit like this from low-income and underemployed people is exposing a cohort, which is something we agree on. You said 96 per cent don't have dependants; I said 3½ per cent do have dependants. Those are the ATO's figures: 3½ per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds have dependants. It's still a decent sized cohort of people. You're the responsible minister. The awful responsibility you have is the impact of your legislation. If there is tragedy in that family, in that cohort, and they haven't the literacy or the access to the internet or the financial acumen to have gone and tested their meagre superannuation policy and something happens, where will they go for recourse? If there's a suicide or other death, where will they get compensation from? 11:01 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Forgive me, Senator Gallacher, I thought you said 13½ per cent, not 3½ per cent, so I didn't mean to correct you there. I re-emphasise that we're not denying anybody insurance. Anybody who wants insurance can get insurance. Anybody who thinks they need insurance can get insurance through their superannuation fund. Of that 3½ per cent, the trustees will approach them and say, 'Do you want insurance?' It is opt-in; it's not opt-out. That's all we're trying to do here. In fact, the average premium at the moment is not $80 a year—it's $340. For people on balances that are low or for people under 25, that $340 a year, average, insurance premium is enough to eat away at the fund growth, so it can never get above that critical mass. What we're trying to do is help them get above that critical mass so that compound interest can take effect, and then insurance premiums can be applied appropriately without it eroding their retirement savings. 11:02 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia There might be a figure of $380 across the sector, but we have very specific funds saying it is much less than that, and they have provided evidence to that effect. The reality is that one size doesn't fit all. Your fairly blunt instrument is going to excise a whole cohort of people who, on your own evidence, don't know anything about their super, have no engagement with their super and haven't taken any action to opt out. If your argument was correct they would have opted out. My argument is the reverse. How can you expect people who are not engaged, for whom there is no evidence that they're getting financial advice, to opt in? They don't expect anything unexpected to happen to them. The reality is that industry super funds in particular have looked at a cohort and made a best-interest decision as a result of a group life insurance policy for the whole cohort of members. They believe that's correct. You believe it's incorrect. If your legislation gets through there's a cohort of people who will have nowhere to go, if they're not engaged and they haven't opted in, in the event of something untoward happening. What do you say in respect of that? 11:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I believe we're beginning to cover old ground. This is an incredible opportunity for trustees to engage with those members who are disengaged. That is in fact the problem we're going to be solving as part of this legislation. 11:04 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I would just note that, once again, it hasn't happened historically—and this was exposed in painful detail during the royal commission, as you well know, Minister. And while we're all hopeful that we may see changes across the board in the culture of financial service businesses, and I do accept that you, as a person, are genuinely interested in seeing that change in culture, I don't share your optimism that that's necessarily going to happen—unless we actually force it to happen. But in relation to Senator Gallacher's question about the kinds of people we're talking about here, the real people within this cohort who are going to be disadvantaged by this, I want to ask a question as to why this legislation didn't consider keeping total permanent disability as opt out. To give you a little bit of background, there was some very compelling evidence provided to the economics committee around the impact of cancer on young people. So, Minister, are you aware of what the leading causes of death are amongst young Australians? Are you able to give us the key causes of death or serious mortality for young Australians? 11:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I'm not speaking from any statistics here, but my personal understanding is the leading cause of death of young people is in fact suicide—one of those causes of death that often is not, in fact, covered by insurance within superannuation. Again, a very good example of how these young people are often paying premiums for products they don't know they have, don't want, don't understand and potentially can't claim on. What I can tell you though is that Rice Warner, the actuarial firm, has data that shows that less than one per cent of members under 25 claim on their insurance. 11:07 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Thank you, Minister, but you would accept that that one per cent desperately need that insurance, no more so than in the case of a young person who has cancer. Sadly, you're right with the information you provided about the leading cause of death, but the second-highest cause of death in this country for young Australians is cancer, which might surprise many people. Every year more than 1,000 individuals in Australia aged between 15 and 25 are diagnosed with cancer. It is the second leading cause of death in this age group. This information was provided to senators during the committee inquiry. And while the overall survival rate is high—89 per cent, thankfully—there is a long process of being drawn away from financial independence and a career path because you have to deal with an extremely traumatic event like getting cancer at that age. They're covered under this scheme. They're covered because this is the default, and it was designed to be provided so that these vulnerable cohorts had a social safety net. Interestingly, when you read the inquiry submission from the Cancer Council, they say that the total permanent disability insurance associated with superannuation may be the only financial support open to these young people at such a stressful time in their life. But, Minister, they do acknowledge and recognise that a default death benefit may not be required by most of these individuals given the low likelihood that they might have dependents. Was there any consideration given to maintaining the default position on TPD versus payments for life insurance? 11:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think this is outside the remit of this legislation, so I can only really take it as a comment. Suffice to say, I do believe that this legislation, once enacted, will create an environment where perhaps the superannuation funds and the insurance companies are a little bit more considered about the products they put together for their members. 11:09 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, do you have any comprehension of the kind of out-of-pocket costs, not to mention the emotional costs, of a young Australian in that 15- to 25-year-old cohort having to fighting cancer? 11:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Again, I don't necessarily think that's relevant to this particular piece of legislation, but I will comment that obviously Australia has a quality medical system. We have Medicare; we have the disability support pension; there is the NDIS. The disability support pension helps those that are out of work due to disability. 11:10 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It is totally relevant to this. It is totally 100 per cent relevant to this bill and why the Greens have opposed it all along. We support a safety net; we support a risk-pooling system. It was set up by the government to protect the most vulnerable Australians. That is exactly what you are taking away today. Yes, my example may be emotive, but it is very real of those vulnerable Australians, the ones who are most at risk from the changes we are going to see today. The Cancer Council also pointed out that active low-balance accounts most likely belong to low-income earners, something I think we all accept. I noted in Senator McAllister's speech in the second reading debate that it's women in particular who have experienced family related career breaks or part-time employment. Of course, many in part-time employment actually aren't covered by other workplace forms of insurance you would be covered with if you had full-time employment. Is the minister aware that this low-income cohort is 39 per cent more likely to suffer from cancer than those outside of that low-income cohort, given the stresses in their life and the challenges that they face? 11:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I think we're getting repetitive, and I've already said I'll take those issues about cancer as a comment. I will, again, re-emphasise that Rice Warner, the actuary that is an expert in this field, has shown that some members under 25 are paying over 300 per cent of their true premium for death and TPD cover, and this particularly affects women. 11:12 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania One last question; I will go back to my earlier question which you didn't answer, Minister, because you said it was outside the scope of this bill. If that is the case, if the data that Rice Warner has provided is correct, why hasn't the government worked with the insurance industry to tailor and provide a product, whether it's TPD or life insurance, that does factor in age and income? If the data is there and the actuaries do have this information—don't get between these companies and a bowl of money. They know the kinds of risks they're pricing and what kinds of returns they're going to make. And I absolutely agree that they have been gouging customers, including this most vulnerable cohort. Rather than removing the safety net of default insurance, would a simpler solution be to have the insurance priced properly? If everything you've said in here is correct and you have confidence that the trustees have a relationship with the dependants under those systems and they have that information, then why don't we actually put in place a system where they can price these products properly? That would take away the whole issue of cross-subsidisation and allow us to maintain a system that protects our most vulnerable Australians. The TEMPORARY CHAIR F49 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Roberts to government amendments (5), (9), (14) and (16) be agree to. Question agreed to. Senator McALLISTER 121628 by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2), (4) to (6), (8) to (11) and (13) on sheet 8767 together: (1) Amendment (1), omit "November 2019", insert "January 2020". (2) Amendment (4), item 3A, paragraph 68AAF(1)(c), before "the member", insert "it is reasonable to conclude". (4) Amendment (6), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (5) Amendment (7), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (6) Amendment (8), omit "December 2019", substitute "February 2020". (8) Amendment (10), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (9) Amendment (11), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (10) Amendment (12), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (11) Amendment (13), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". (13) Amendment (15), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020". I should indicate, just from a procedural perspective, that I move only these items to avoid duplicating the matters that have been dealt with in the One Nation amendments that we just considered. These amendments from Labor go to the issue that I've been exploring this morning with the minister. The government's proposed approach to deal with high-risk workers assumes that trustees will have complete information about the occupational risk associated with each of the individual fund members' occupations. This is not the case. It is not the case now and it is unlikely to be the case in the future. It is very unlikely that funds will be able to obtain this information with this level of certainty as defined in the scheme laid out by the minister. The funds at the moment only have information that the employer gives them. That information is, in any case, often incomplete, but the legal obligation is merely to provide the worker's name, the date of birth and the address. Most funds are able to supplement that, and Senator Hume has made reference to the process by which the funds engage with their members to do that, but this is a time-consuming and imperfect activity, and the mechanism imagined by the government to protect high-risk workers as a consequence is quite inadequate. The frustration that I have and that Labor has about this is that there are alternatives available. And so what the industry funds have said to us is that they are already engaging with the ATO. There is a relevant data set at the ATO which could be used to provide more complete information about members and their occupations and thus allow funds and trustees to establish the risk profile of each of their members. But, as Senator Hume told the chamber earlier, this was not contemplated by government, for reasons that haven't really been explained, and so we are left with a quite imperfect model. We're not the government. We can only respond to the agenda set in the chamber here by the government. To that extent, we are now in the second-best position of trying to improve upon a government proposal which we are not entirely satisfied with but which we are prepared to work on together. And the amendments that I am moving now just seek to make one key difference. We seek to change the government mechanism so that, if a trustee makes a decision, they may make that decision under a reasonable belief about the risk profile of their members. Our concern is this: without this protection that the trustee must only establish a reasonable belief, our concern is that trustees are at risk of legal action—being sued by either a member or a dependant of a member—because the trustee made the wrong decision as to whether or not to provide cover. As I've indicated, there are other means by which we could address this problem. If the government were willing to do so, the provision of ATO data would also be an alternative pathway by which we could solve this unsatisfactory situation where the truth is that trustees do not have enough data about their members. There are other means, but the government has indicated that it's unwilling to consider this; in fact, it's been unable to explain why it hasn't considered it so far. And so our proposal before the chamber now is that we insert a provision that the trustee must have a reasonable belief that an individual member is in a high-risk occupation and therefore can be switched into a category where they continue to be provided group insurance on an opt-out basis. This is a compromise, but it is an attempt to reach agreement with government to allow their mechanism, which they are proposing, to work as it is intended to work. Based on the feedback that we are receiving from funds and trustees, we present this argument, and we hope that it will enjoy support from others in the chamber. 11:19 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We'll be supporting these amendments because it's better than the position before us that will see default insurance completely removed, but I would point out to Senator McAllister that, while I think we both agree on that, actually the issue here is outside of work. With high-risk occupations, the issue is that the default insurance situation we have in this country was set up to provide a safety net for vulnerable Australians in this cohort that we're dealing with today, and it actually is most important outside of work. I feel that the whole question of high-risk occupation versus low-risk occupation is not going to get to the heart of the problem here. Nevertheless, we'll be supporting the amendments because they're an improvement on the government's bill. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1), (2), (4) to (6), (8) to (11) and (13) on sheet 8767, as moved by Senator McAllister, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:24]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M (teller) McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Pratt, LC Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S (teller) Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 7 PAIRS Dodson, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Canavan, MJ Polley, H Bernardi, C Rice, J Griff, S Sterle, G Reynolds, L Urquhart, AE Cash, MC Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.

11:27 The CHAIR 112096 The question is that the government amendments, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 11:28 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania by leave—I move the Greens amendments (1) to (19) on sheet 8655: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8),at the end of the heading to section 68AAB, add "in relation to choice products". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 11), omit "or MySuper product". (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 26 and 27), omit "or MySuper product". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 30), omit "or MySuper product". (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 33), at the end of the heading to section 68AAC, add "in relation to choice products". (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 1), omit "or MySuper product". (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 11 and 12), omit "or MySuper product". (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 29), after section 69AAC, insert: 68AACA Benefits providing by taking out insurance—MySuper members with low ‑balance account or who are under 25 years old (1) Each trustee of a regulated superannuation fund must ensure that a benefit is not provided by the fund to, or in respect of, a member of the fund under a MySuper product held by the member by taking out or maintaining insurance if: (a) both of the following apply: (i) the member has an account balance with the fund that relates to the product that is less than $6,000; (ii) on or after 1 November 2019, the member has not had an account balance with the fund that relates to the product that was equal to or greater than $6,000; or (b) the member is under the age of 25 years. (2) This section does not apply to: (a) a defined benefit member; or (b) an ADF Super member (within the meaning of the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015); or (c) a person who would be an ADF Super member apart from the fact that the regulated superannuation fund is or was, for the purposes of Part 3A of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, a chosen fund for contributions for the person's superannuation by the Commonwealth; or (d) a member to whom the employer‑sponsor contribution exception applies (see section 68AAE). (3) Nothing in this section affects a right of a member of a regulated superannuation fund if: (a) the right relates to insurance cover; and (b) in compliance with this section, an insurance premium in relation to the member for that insurance cover ceases to be paid; and (c) the right exists because of insurance premiums paid in relation to the member before insurance premiums cease to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (b). (4) Nothing in this section affects a right of a member of a regulated superannuation fund if: (a) the right is a right to insurance cover for a fixed term, subject only to the payment of insurance premiums; and (b) that fixed term begins before the time at which a trustee of the fund is required under subsection (1) to ensure that a benefit is not provided to, or in respect of, the member under a MySuper product held by the member by taking out or maintaining insurance. (9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 32), omit "and 68AAC", substitute "68AAC and 68AACA". (10) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 35), omit "and 68AAC", substitute "68AAC and 68AACA". (11) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (line 6), omit "or 68AAC", substitute ", 68AAC or 68AACA". (12) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 6), after item 5, insert: 5A After section 68AA Insert: 68AB Commonwealth to provide permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit to certain MySuper members (1) This section applies to a member (the applicable member) of a regulated superannuation fund under a MySuper product held by the member if: (a) section 68AACA applies in relation to the product; and (b) the member does not hold a choice product or another MySuper product with any regulated superannuation fund (including the first‑mentioned fund) that provides permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit to the member. (2) APRA, on behalf of the Commonwealth, must provide permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit to the applicable member in accordance with: (a) if the member holds a MySuper product with only one regulated superannuation fund—the policy of insurance that fund has taken out for the purposes of section 68AA; or (b) otherwise—the policy of insurance determined by APRA under subsection (3). (3) If the applicable member holds a MySuper product with more than one regulated superannuation fund, APRA must determine, from the policies of insurance those funds have taken out for the purposes of section 68AA, the policy the provision of permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit must be in accordance with. (4) In making a determination for the purposes of subsection (3), APRA must take into account any matters specified in the regulations made for the purposes of this subsection. (5) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which APRA is not to provide permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit under this section. (13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 9 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 6 At the end of paragraph 20QA(1 ) ( a) Add: (ix) no benefit that despite section 68AAB of the SIS Act could, because of the application of subsection 68AAB(5) or (6) of that Act, be provided to, or in respect of, the member under the product by taking out or maintaining insurance is provided in that way; and (x) no benefit that despite section 68AACA of the SIS Act could, because of the application of subsection 68AACA(3) or (4) of that Act, be provided to, or in respect of, the member under the product by taking out or maintaining insurance is provided in that way; and (14) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item, substitute: 7 Subsection 20QA(3) Omit "subparagraphs (1) (a) (iv), (v) and (viii)", substitute "subparagraphs (1) (a) (iv), (v), (viii), (ix) and (x)". (15) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 9), omit "or MySuper product". (16) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 6), omit "or MySuper product". (17) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 22), omit "or MySuper product". (18) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 11), omit "or MySuper product". (19) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 13), after item 9, insert: 9A Application of sections 68AACA and 68AB (1) Section 68AACA of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (the SIS Act), as inserted by item 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to a benefit provided by a regulated superannuation fund to, or in respect of, a member of the fund under a MySuper product held by the member, if the member becomes such a member on or after 1 February 2020. (2) Section 68AB of the SIS Act, as inserted by item 5A of this Schedule, applies in relation to a member of a regulated superannuation fund under a MySuper product held by the member to which that section applies if the Consolidated Revenue Fund is appropriated for the purposes of providing permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit to such a member under that section. I think the Greens have been very clear in this debate yesterday, today and when the legislation was before us in the last parliament. We want to see default insurance maintained for vulnerable cohorts, low-income and younger Australians. We want to see that maintained as opt-out. We don't believe opt-in will work. We believe it will put a cohort of young Australians and low-income Australians at considerable risk. This was set up to be a social safety net, and we believe that the government has an important role to play in ensuring that especially vulnerable Australians are protected. The Greens have what we believe is a comprehensive fix that is reflected in the amendments before us today. The amendments that have been circulated would quite simply prohibit members who are under 25 and with low-account balances from being provided group insurance through default superannuation funds. Instead, they would provide a pathway or legislation that establishes the government as the shadow provider of insurance for these members by assessing and honouring valid claims under the same terms and conditions as would be the case if these members were defaulted into group insurance. In other words, though I know this may be quite shocking to some senators in the chamber, we would like to nationalise life insurance and TPD as it's set up currently for the excluded cohorts in this bill. This would fix the problem of young people having their balances eroded, which the minister has pointed out today. That was provided for in the Productivity Commission reports, and the minister has also quoted Rice Warner. This would solve that problem. It would ensure that those who most need TPD and life insurance and protection get it. This would ensure that the situation at the moment is maintained: that it's opt out; it's default. If you're unlucky enough to be under 25 or in the low-income category, for example, and you have a fight with cancer, then you're covered. It's just one example that we've given today. I did talk in some detail about it in my speech on the second reading yesterday, so I won't labour it for too much longer. This could be provided by the government entirely to maintain the social safety net, or it could be provided on a costs basis. There are a number of different models that could be applied to that. I would ask the senators to consider this. It could still be provided under the current payment of premiums, but that would be my least preferred model, because I think it's been established that a number of this vulnerable cohort are being gouged by group insurers. I believe it could be paid for at cost, especially if, as the Greens suggested in the earlier debate this morning, we use the actuarial data and age and income weighted TPD and life insurance in this country, which you would expect would be a reasonable proposition. If the government provided this at cost—should I also say the shocking words 'not for profit'—if this were provided by the government on a not-for-profit basis or at-cost basis, then of course the premiums for this vulnerable cohort would be a lot lower. I don't have that data. Much as I have amazing staff in my office—I think some of the smartest staff in this building, I would like to boast—we don't have the capabilities to model how much lower that premium might possibly be. But, nevertheless, logic would show that a government administered system—Singapore is an example—would provide much lower-cost TPD and life insurance for vulnerable cohorts. And, as I pointed out to Senator Bragg in here yesterday, you could even have a model where the government might set the parameters and regulate, but it could still be essentially run and outsourced to group insurers and others at cost. You could still get industry involvement, but it still would be a government system. There are a lot of different alternatives to this. We believe it's a neat solution to the problem that we're facing here today. I would recommend the Greens amendments to the Senate. 11:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I just want to indicate the opposition's voting position on this. I note that Senator Whish-Wilson seeks to ensure that young people around Australia are appropriately covered by life insurance, and that is an objective which Labor shares. But we won't be supporting these particular amendments; they propose a quite bold change to the architecture of insurance and safety nets in Australia, including a very significant role for government. Inevitably, it would have financial implications for government. I think one could see in Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution that there are a number of uncertainties about the practical implementation arrangements for the scheme proposed in the amendments and, whilst creative, it's not a scheme that we would support, and so we won't be supporting the amendments. 11:35 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I might add, just to get on the record, the way we estimated the costs using the PBO data which I mentioned in the Greens' earlier contribution. If we assume the historical data is accurate, we're looking at $600 million a year that is paid out to this vulnerable cohort on average. May I remind the chamber that it suggests a number of vulnerable Australians—young Australians and low-income Australians—are currently using the default insurance that they get through their super. We believe the costs would be $600 million a year maximum. We could have a debate at some other time as to whether that's a reasonable investment by government in vulnerable Australians. I believe it probably would be. Nevertheless, it could also be reduced significantly by the payment of premiums by this cohort. But of course they're never going to get lower premiums through potential price gouging by group insurers. It could be done at cost and it could even be administered by the industry. I'll finish just by saying that perhaps at some other time, Senator McAllister, we could look at this sort of thing in more detail because I think there is a broader discussion to be had in this country about government nationalising super across the board, let alone for this cohort. I think there is a very important role for government to play in this. The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, (1) to (19) on sheet 8655 together, be agreed to. Question negatived. 11:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move Labor amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 8764 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 5 and 6), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020". (3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 7), omit "1July 2019", substitute "1April 2020". (4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 11), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 14), omit "1 August 2019", substitute "1 May 2020". (6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 18), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020". (7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 23), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 9), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 20), omit "1July 2019", substitute "1April 2020". (10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 24), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 27), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020". (12) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 30), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 April 2020". (13) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 13), omit "1 October 2019", substitute "1 July 2020". These amendments go to the critical issue of time frame for implementation. In particular, they seek to further extend the implementation time frame. The government has, just now, moved amendments to its own bill, which have shifted implementation deadlines to April. Labor's view is that those ought to be extended to July. That's based on the advice that was received by the committee when it examined this matter. In particular, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority gave evidence: APRA considers an appropriate implementation timeframe would be, at minimum, 6 months but preferably 12 months … Whilst Labor's amendments do not go as far as 12 months, we think that the July implementation arrangements would be preferable. That's based on feedback from industry, which sees there is a natural opportunity at the beginning of a financial year to commence the new arrangements; it's on that basis that we're moving these amendments. It's important to understand how complex it is to implement a reform of this kind and the fact that it does take time to do it properly and to do it well. Industry Super Australia, which is the body that represents all of the industry super funds, provided evidence as follows: If the Government proceeds with the proposed changes, the implementation date is unimplementable and will result in member confusion and detriment. It is proposed that the commencement date of 1 July 2020 would allow funds to renegotiate insurance contracts on reasonable terms, make relevant system changes and properly inform members, but under no circumstances should it be sooner than 6 months after royal assent. I want to go to that question about renegotiating insurance contracts on reasonable terms. I spoke about this in my second reading contribution. These are complex commercial matters. A negotiation will take time and that is compounded by the fact that the insurance companies will be negotiating with every firm in the industry during this very short window of time. It is not in members' interests that those negotiations be rushed. Trustees ought to have the time that is necessary to engage in robust commercial negotiations with insurance providers so that they can obtain the best deal for their members. A rushed process doesn't place pressure on the insurance funds, as Senator Bragg erroneously attributed to me yesterday in this place. I'm not concerned about the pressure it might place on the insurance funds; I am concerned about the pressure it places on trustees and the constraints it places on them to pursue the outcomes that they know are in the best interests of their members, consistent with their duties as trustees. It's on that basis that we are making this recommendation for just a little bit more time. Again, I reiterate my earlier proposition. Labor is trying to make these reforms work. We are broadly on board with the objective of the bill, which is to limit the erosion of member balances. But you have to do this in a practical and workable way and in a way that responds to the real-world conditions of the industry. The advice we are receiving is that time is required to contact members, to engage in that communication process and also to undertake commercial negotiations in relation to group insurance. AustralianSuper provided very useful evidence to the committee about the impact of the previous round of reforms on their ability to communicate with their members and administer the changes—another round of reforms that were done in an enormously compressed time frame. They said: '… due to the short timeframe for removing cover for inactive members, the response from affected members was overwhelming and our expanded contact centre was unable to cope with the volume of calls.' That's not in members' interests. They went on to say: Whilst losing cover may provide significant benefits from not eroding account balances for the majority of members, a failure to make an informed decision to continue cover for members with financial commitments and dependents may have dire financial consequences for those unfortunate enough to die or become disabled. Similarly, Mine Super gave evidence about the difficulties communicating with workers in regional and remote locations, FIFO workers. It is difficult to reach these people, and a compressed time frame creates the real risk that there won't be adequate communication between funds and their members. It is on that basis that we do urge the government to be flexible in relation to implementation. We've got recommendations from industry that implementation occur at the beginning of the financial year, next year. This seems reasonable and sensible, and it's on that basis that I commend these amendments to the chamber. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 8764 moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:47]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S (teller) Chandler, C Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 8 PAIRS Ayres, T Bernardi, C Dodson, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Canavan, MJ McCarthy, M Colbeck, R Rice, J Griff, S Sterle, G Reynolds, L Watt, M Cash, MC Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

NOTICES 25 NOTICES Withdrawal 25 11:50 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Pursuant to notice given on 18 September 2019, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I withdraw notices of motion proposing the disallowance of various legislative instruments, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber. Presentation 25 COMMITTEES 26 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 26 Report 26 11:51 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present the sixth report of 2019 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 OF 2019 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 7.15pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2019 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2019 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2019 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2019 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019 Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019 Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019 Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019 VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019 Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019 Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019 Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019 Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Unsolicited Communications) Bill 2019. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral) Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add: "(a) and, in respect of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 October 2019; (b) and, in respect of the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019, contingent upon the introduction of the bill in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 February 2020." This amendment seeks to extend reporting dates for two pieces of legislation: the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 and the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. Both of these bills, we believe, warrant a longer reporting date than the government has so far agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 27 BUSINESS Rearrangement 27 11:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That— (a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and (b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today. Non-controversial government business— No. 5—Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 No. 6—Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019 No. 7—National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019 Question agreed to. Rearrangement 28 11:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That general business Order of the Day No. 30, Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 28 11:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the following senators be granted leave of absence for today, 19 September: (a) Senators Dodson and Farrell, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Sterle, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 28 11:54 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today: (a) Senator Canavan, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Reynolds, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 28 COMMITTEES Privileges Committee 28 Reference 28 11:54 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report: Having regard to the statements made to the Senate by Senators Patrick and Lambie on 16 September 2019, and the documents tabled by the President on 18 September 2019: (a) whether there was any attempt to improperly interfere with the free performance by any senator of their duties as a senator; (b) whether there was any attempt to improperly influence any senator in their conduct as a senator, by intimidation, force or threat of any kind; and (c) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters. 11:54 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 The question before us today asks us to abandon an important democratic principle in order to take action against someone whose behaviour we all find reprehensible. John Setka's behaviour has been disgraceful. Anyone who has followed his case in the media knows that he has been accused of acting in a misogynistic manner towards women and, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions, he's been dismissive of the harm that his behaviour has caused. As recently as last week, he was caught on tape speaking dismissively about conduct that any decent person knows is completely unacceptable. He's not taking the issues confronting him seriously and he clearly does not get it. But the referral today is not about those matters. It's not about whether John Setka is a good person or a bad person. It's not about whether or not you think he's a good representative for the union movement. The only question before us today is whether John Setka interfered with the operations of the Senate or exerted improper influence on senators and whether doing so meets the test for a referral to privileges. That's the only question we have to decide today and, on the basis of the information before the Senate, he clearly does not. We accept that Senators Patrick and Lambie are aggrieved by his comments, and we're not saying that they're wrong for feeling the way that they do. What we're saying is that those comments do not meet the test outlined in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The statements made by Mr Setka with regard to Senators Patrick and Lambie, when stripped of their profanity, amounted to nothing more than an organisation stating it would run a campaign against a publicly contested policy position. A union has the right to run a campaign to protect the rights of Australian workers and the members it represents. Indeed, any organisation or citizen has the right to campaign; it is not a threat to engage in a democratic process. Part (b) of this referral refers to two other CFMEU members, at a time when former senator Nick Xenophon was in parliament, accused of accosting the senator with their views on legislation before the parliament. While these allegations may be legitimate, the Committee of Privileges should not be used to pursue one individual for the behaviour of others. We note that this matter has already been referred to the Federal Police for criminal investigation and we await the result of any subsequent investigation. However, to support this referral today would send us down a very slippery slope, a slope of politicians abusing an important parliamentary committee to punish their political competitors. We have seen the referrals process abused in the past and we must ensure that it does not happen now. This sets a very dangerous precedent that could be used in future to pursue the leader of any organisation or indeed any citizen seeking to mount a political campaign against something they oppose. If any other evidence should emerge, we will reconsider our position. And, if the Senate does choose to refer this matter to the privileges committee, then we will of course respect that decision. 11:59 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is not granted. I'll remind people this is not a forum for debate. Requests by party leaders to make statements are granted leave to explain positions adopted by parties, but it is up to any senator to grant or otherwise deny leave. I'm going to put the motion moved by Senator Patrick. 11:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I didn't anticipate that there would be opposition to this motion, so I apologise that I've run into the chamber. I understand the Greens are opposing this and I understand that they don't intend to call a division, so I thought that it would perhaps be useful to put on the record that the Labor Party supports the motion from Senator Patrick. I would make the point that the President made yesterday—that the relevant matters are those set out in privileges resolution 4. I would also make the point that backing the President on a procedural matter, such as the granting of precedence, we believe, as a party of government and a responsible actor in this chamber, is important. We believe it is a very significant thing to do in those circumstances where precedence has been granted by the President to fail to support the motion. And if I may be so bold as to say this: it seemed to me, from listening to the contribution from Senator Di Natale, that he was essentially prejudging the consideration of this matter by the Privileges Committee. The whole purpose of the referral is so that the committee can make a judgement on this. I think that in those circumstances it's disappointing that the Greens political party have chosen to take the course they have. That's a matter for them, but I did want to place on record the Labor Party's position, which is that we will be supporting the referral. Question agreed to. Economics References Committee 29 Reference 29 12:01 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) Australia's oil and gas reserves are valuable sovereign resources which are finite; (b) in 2018, natural gas and crude petroleum exports represented 11.7% of Australia's total exports in dollar value; (c) the Australian Tax Office tax transparency data, released by the Australian Tax Office, provides clear indications that many oil and gas companies operating in Australia are paying very little or no corporate tax and limited petroleum rent resource tax; (d) by means of comparison, in a single year (2018), the following overseas national or state-owned oil and gas companies reported the following taxes to the respective governments in the amounts of: (i) Equinor (Norway) paid AUD$28 billion tax on AUD$105 billion revenue, (ii) Pemex (Mexico) paid AUD$29 billion in tax on AUD$99 billion revenue, and (iii) Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia) paid AUD$67 billion on $478 billion revenue; and (e) research activities undertaken by both UMR Research Pty Ltd and the CSIRO supports the view that the majority of Australians are of the opinion that the economic benefits of mining in Australia are not distributed fairly. (2) That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report on the first sitting: day in March 2020: (a) arrangements used by other countries to maximise the benefit to the public of national oil and gas reserves; (b) arrangement that could be considered to maximise benefit to the public of Australia's national oil and gas resources, cognisant of: (i) sovereign risk, (ii) existing property rights, and (iii) federal and state jurisdictions; and (c) any related matters. 12:01 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 No-one has done more than the Greens in this chamber to pursue the tax avoidance of some of the biggest polluters on this planet, who, under the petroleum resource rent tax and other measures, numerous Senate inquiries have shown to be avoiding and dodging their responsibilities. Under the PRRT, there is over $330 billion in tax deferments that will never be paid to the Australian people for schools, hospitals and the whole range of things we need our revenue for. We support continued scrutiny of this industry and we support the spirit of this referral. Unfortunately, I had a discussion with Senator Patrick this morning, and we haven't had time to come to an agreement. We would like to have seen the terms of reference expanded to look at how the transition to renewable energy would lead to stranded assets and risk in this sector. We feel that would have been an important contribution today. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 1 in the name of Senator Patrick be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

33 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 27 NOES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 8 PAIRS Bernardi, C Lines, S Canavan, MJ Farrell, D Cash, MC Keneally, KK Colbeck, R Kitching, K Cormann, M Wong, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Dodson, P Griff, S Rice, J Reynolds, L Sterle,

Question agreed to.

Economics References Committee 31 Reference 31 12:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I, and on behalf of Senator Gallacher, move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in June 2020: Developing and delivering Australia’s sovereign naval shipbuilding capability, with particular reference to: (a) oversight and scrutiny of the national shipbuilding plan, to support a continuous build of vessels in Australia; (b) progress of the design, management and implementation of naval shipbuilding and submarine defence procurement projects in Australia; (c) progress of the Naval Shipbuilding College in building workforce capability, and developing the required skills and infrastructure to design, build, maintain, sustain and upgrade current and future naval fleet; (d) ongoing examination of contracts and scrutiny of expenditure; (e) the implementation of Australian Industry Capability Plans; (f) the utilisation of local content and supply chains; (g) the transfer of intellectual property and skills to Australian firms and workers; (h) the prospect of imminent job losses and redundancies; (i) opportunities and multiplier effects to local jobs and the economy; and (j) any related matters. 12:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Had this motion confined itself to the elements relevant to the scrutiny of the naval shipbuilding industry and relevant contracts, we would wholeheartedly endorse it. However, given that it relates also to the needs and pressures related to an expansion of the industry, which we do not support, it is not something which meets with our approval. However, based on the longstanding agreement not to oppose motions unless they are particularly egregious, we will not be voting against it. However, I take this opportunity to put on the record that we are spending $100 million a day on defence expenditure in this country in the face of absolute evidence suggesting the uselessness of that in the area of infrastructure spending. Any opposition worth its salt would spend its time pursuing that angle. Question agreed to. BILLS 31 BILLS Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019 31

Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019

First Reading 31 12:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an act to amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, and for related purposes: Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019. Question agreed to. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I present the bill and 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 32 12:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 2019. The Bill will amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to expand eligibility for the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme to all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force who have at least one days' continuous service. As the Minister for Defence, I recognise the unique place occupied by Defence members and veterans in the great history of our nation and in the hearts of all Australians. The Australian community has a clear and reasonable expectation that veterans and members of the Defence force, and their families, will be well looked after and treated in a manner that is consistent with the sacrifices they have made on behalf of us all. As a Government we have made it unambiguously clear that we are committed to recognising the service and sacrifice of current and former Defence force members and their families. On 24 April 2019 the Government announced that expanded eligibility under the Defence Service Homes Scheme would commence from 1 January 2020. This expansion of eligibility is designed to close existing gaps and ensure that all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force are eligible for home building insurance under the Scheme, regardless of the type of service they have undertaken. Reservists and Peacekeepers, widows and widowers will all be eligible under the scheme. Expansion of eligibility will mean more ADF members and veterans will be able to access low cost home building insurance. This will be particularly meaningful in regional and northern Australia where there is a greater frequency of adverse weather and other natural events than in some southern metropolitan areas. The amendments will align the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme with the Australian Government's policy of supporting all veterans who have served, regardless of the type or length or service, in recognition of their sacrifice in the interests of the nation. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 32 MOTIONS Dolphin Captivity 32 12:12 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) dolphins are highly intelligent animals, with complex physical and behavioural needs – in the wild, they live in intricate social networks, are migratory and can travel more than 100 kilometres in a single day, (ii) captive environments are incapable of meeting the needs of dolphins and can severely impact their health and welfare, and (iii) the Parliament of Canada has passed legislation banning whales, dolphins and porpoises from being bred or held in captivity in most circumstances; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to work with states and territories to ban dolphin captivity for entertainment in Australia. 12:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 This is yet another example of the arrogance of the Greens to presume that they know what dolphins are thinking and feeling. We have a horse. Our daughter has a wonderful horse named Clancy. Clancy is a horse, so he behaves in accordance with being a herd animal. People who take a horse out of a herd usually have a companion animal. We chose not to. Clancy is now on our acreage at home. He loves being with humans. He does not like being with horses. The point of the matter is that we don't know what animals think. Secondly, dolphins like humans. That's a fact. That's well known. Dolphins are attracted to humans. These kinds of practices actually fund research into dolphins, and these kinds of businesses support the curing of dolphins recovering from being hit by boats. This is yet another example of the Greens pretending that they know everything. 12:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm not sure I can top that effort from Senator Roberts in any way. The Labor Party is quite comfortable with section (a)(i), which I think Senator Roberts was objecting to. Labor won't be supporting this motion, as it is primarily a state matter to deal with. I think these motions are quite blunt instruments. They don't allow the opportunity to explore some of the issues that this motion raises, which are around how you would ban dolphin captivity in Australia. It doesn't recognise the importance of people who work in jobs in the tourism industry. It raises a number of issues that we don't think can be dealt with within one minute of a debate for some senators. As such, we will be opposing the motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 152 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

8 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 49 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McKenzie, B O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Sheldon, A Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Smith, M Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Northern Australia: Insurance 34 12:18 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) inquiry into northern Australian insurance found insurance premiums rose by 130% in northern Australia over the past decade, compared to just over 50% in the rest of the country, (ii) 82% of those surveyed by the ACCC experienced some level of underinsurance, (iii) the ACCC has published two reports that made 28 recommendations aimed at making insurance in north Queensland fairer, and more transparent, (iv) the ACCC has urged the Federal Government to act quickly to respond to the ACCC recommendations to improve northern Australian insurance markets, (v) in 2015, the Member for Leichhardt described the insurance situation as being in "crisis", and this week the Member for Dawson acknowledged that we are "at crisis point right now", and (vi) the Federal Government promised to fix this crisis, but they have refused to take any action; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to act quickly to respond to the ACCC's recommendations. 12:19 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Commonwealth is already taking action on the key recommendations of the ACCC, including extending unfair contract term protections to insurance contracts and improving disclosure practice for better consumer understanding and access to information. The government remains committed to working with all stakeholders to develop solutions that will lead to a sustainable reduction in premium levels, promote a competitive insurance market and make a recognisable difference for consumers in northern Australia. Question agreed to. World Maritime Day 34 12:19 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Sterle, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 26 September 2019 will be World Maritime Day, a day commemorated by the United Nations and marked worldwide, (ii) World Maritime Day was established to highlight the importance of shipping safety, maritime security and the marine environment, (iii) the theme for the 2019 World Maritime Day is 'Empowering Women in the Maritime Community', (iv) this year's theme aims to highlight the important contribution women make to the maritime sector, and (v) 80% of global trade and 90% of goods transported to, from and around Australia, is transported by sea; and (b) joins with many international and local organisations in recognising World Maritime Day, pays tribute to the contribution of Australia's women seafarers and the vital contribution Australia's maritime industries and workers make to our economic, environmental and national security. Question agreed to. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 34 12:20 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that children and young people who are in youth detention centres and prisons are excluded from accessing Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; (b) recognises that these policies disproportionately impact First Nations peoples who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system; (c) acknowledges that children and young people in detention should have the right to the same health services and pharmaceutical benefits as the rest of the population; and (d) calls on the Commonwealth Government to implement the recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory that relate to this issue: (i) to enable the payment of Medicare benefits for medical services provided to children and young people in detention, and (ii) to ensure that supply of pharmaceuticals to children and young people in detention is provided under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 12:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Prisoner health care is the responsibility of state and territory governments under corrective services legislation. This has been so since the inception of Medicare and is reflected in the Health Insurance Act 1973. In the case of publicly provided health care for custodial prisoners, the Health Insurance Act 1973 prevents state and territory governments from transferring healthcare costs associated with their correctional programs to the Commonwealth's Medicare program. States and territories are best placed to manage the provision of health services to the prisoners in their care. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 155 in the name of Senator Siewert be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 7 PAIRS Dodson, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Canavan, MJ Griff, S Hume, J Lines, S Bernardi, C Rice, J Cash, MC Sterle, G Reynolds, L Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.

Coal Industry 36 12:28 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) thanks workers in thermal coal mining operations for their contribution to our economy, and notes that coal workers and communities are not to blame for the climate emergency we are in; (b) notes that, to have any chance of avoiding the worst of the climate emergency, thermal coal use must be phased out; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to develop a plan for the phasing out of thermal coal exports, with a just transition plan for all affected workers and communities so that no person is left behind without secure employment. 12:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The thermal coal industry provides real jobs, and coal was Australia's largest single export earner last year. Thermal coal exports brought in an estimated $26 billion in 2018-19—a new record. The taxes, royalties and income generated by Australia's coal industry enable new investment in education, roads and hospitals, providing jobs and opportunities for current and future generations of Australians. The Greens should quit demonising the coal industry, and its workers should not be forced to transition to jobs you can bet won't be in their home towns in rural and regional areas. Instead, they should be recognised for the hard work they do for our nation. 12:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATT 245759 The opposition will be opposing this motion. We note the sentiments expressed by the Greens in paragraph (a) and in them thanking workers in the thermal coal mining operations and for noting that coal workers are not to blame for the climate emergency we are in. We can only take that as a concession from the Greens that they did totally the wrong thing by backing in a coal convoy during the federal election. This is their way of apologising to coal communities for demonising them in the way that they did during the election. However, Labor will be opposing this motion for the reasons that we've opposed so many motions from the Greens this week. Climate policy and the future of coal communities are far too important matters to be left to the Greens with their silly wedge motions that they come in here and move time after time. We know they've got the meme ready to go. We know they've got the email petitions ready to go. We're not going to be a part of this. We're for serious debate about climate change. We're for serious debate about the future of coal communities, not silly games from the Greens. 12:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 This is day 10, and One Nation opposes this motion. On Monday 9 September in this chamber I challenged the Greens to provide the specific location of the empirical scientific evidence and logical framework that scientifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. It is now day 10, and the Greens continue to not provide any evidence as proof of their unsubstantiated, wild, false and damaging claims. Secondly, on the same day I challenged the Greens to a debate on the climate science and on the corruption of climate science. It is now day 10, as I said, and the Greens continue to fail to debate me. But one thing is new, and that is: I finally agree with Senator Murray Watt. The PRESIDENT I0Q There have been some odd combinations today! The question is the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:32]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

9 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 49 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Carr, KJ Chandler, C Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Polley, H Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Sheldon, A Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Smith, M Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 37 COMMITTEES Membership 37 12:35 The PRESIDENT I0Q I have received letters nominating senators to be members of committees. 12:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move: That senators be appointed to committees as follows: Australia's Family Law System—Joint Select Committee— Appointed— Senators Chandler, Hanson and O'Sullivan Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Henderson, Hughes, McGrath, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Economics Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee— Appointed—Senators Marielle Smith and Walsh Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Senator Siewert Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Henderson Question agreed to. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 38 Report 38 12:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission of Inquiry Bill 2019, together with documents presented to the committee. BILLS 38 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 38

Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019

In Committee 38 12:36 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 250362 The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019. The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. 12:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8765 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 13), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add: ; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF). (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 29), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add: ; or (e) a member to whom the occupation or industry exception applies (see section 68AAF). (3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 35), after item 3, insert: 3A After section 68AAE Insert: 68AAF Occupation or industry exception (1) The occupation or industry exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund who holds a choice product or MySuper product in the fund if, at the time the member first holds the product, the member is working in an occupation or industry covered by an election referred to in subsection (2). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the trustees of a regulated superannuation fund may elect an occupation or industry if the trustees are satisfied that the election of the occupation or industry is appropriate having regard to either or both of the following: (a) evidence of risk and insurance claims in the industry or occupation; (b) the availability of insurance for people working in that industry or occupation that, if taken out on behalf of members of the fund working in that industry or occupation, would represent exceptionally good value for those members. (3) However, the trustees of a regulated superannuation fund must not elect an industry or occupation unless the trustees are satisfied that applying the occupation or industry exception to members of the fund working in that industry or occupation would not inappropriately erode those members' superannuation interests in the fund. (4) The election must be made by giving APRA a written notice that: (a) is in the approved form; and (b) is signed by each trustee of the fund; and (c) includes the outcomes of an actuarial investigation of the matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3); and (d) includes data about risks in that occupation or industry and past insurance claims for that occupation or industry. (5) An election under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument. These amendments essentially seek to create an additional pathway by which workers in high-risk industries can continue to receive life insurance through the opt-out mechanism. The mechanism we propose is an additional alternative to the mechanism proposed by the government earlier in the debate and adopted through the committee process in this chamber. It would allow for trustees to elect an industry which it considers to be a high-risk industry by writing to APRA and providing evidence of the basis on which they have made that decision. As was explored earlier in the debate, whilst it is true that many young workers and workers with low-balance accounts may be able to access life insurance or income protection insurance other than through a group insurance product, this is not the case for many workers in high-risk industries. The Productivity Commission raised concerns about this in their report and they contemplated a broad exemption for workers in these industries. They said: … exemptions to the under-25 opt-in restriction should only be granted if the trustee can demonstrate to APRA that opt-out disability or income protection insurance would be in the best interests of a specific cohort of younger members. They're important words from the PC, because they don't go to individual members; they go to a cohort of members, and they're contemplating evidence about some of these industries that was also raised in the Senate inquiry process. The evidence from the ACTU points out more than a quarter of workers under the age of 25 are in high-risk jobs, with a real risk of fatality. They said that from 2003 to 2016 more than 3,400 workers lost their lives on the job, and, of those, 335 were under the age of 25. More than 27 per cent of workers under the age of 25 are in a high-risk job, and people aged under 25 make up 15.3 per cent of the workforce and suffer injuries at work. They provided case studies to show that young people in these categories have suffered horrific injuries or been killed at work. Their concern was that if the bill passed unamended it would cancel the insurance of police officers, paramedics, construction workers, truck drivers, agricultural workers, forestry workers, prison officers, nurses and healthcare workers. They were pointing to these industries where there are higher-than-usual risks and where group insurance on an opt-out basis is entirely appropriate and sensible. The amendments that have been proposed by Labor on this occasion seek to create exactly the kind of mechanism envisaged by the Productivity Commission when they provided their report to government. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 250362 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8765 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:45]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Faruqi)

28 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M (teller) McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 8 PAIRS Dodson, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Canavan, MJ Keneally, KK Cash, MC Lines, S Bernardi, C Rice, J Seselja, Z Sterle, G Reynolds, L Urquhart, AE Griff, S Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 40

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Second Reading 40 12:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Before the chamber today is the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, with regard to superannuation and the taxation treatment of super. The bill does a number of things. The bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, allowing individuals to avoid unintentionally breaching their concessional contribution caps. The concessional contribution caps, of course, relate to the concessional rates of tax that apply to employee contributions to their superannuation funds. Pretax contributions or eligible contributions attract the concessional taxation rate of 15 per cent on those contributions, generally up to $25,000 per annum, as opposed to the marginal rate of tax that would otherwise apply to that portion of the employee's income. An employee who has multiple engagements could, of course, unintentionally breach this concessional contributions cap. It doesn't apply to a large number of taxpayers, as we see. It kicks in at around $250,000 per annum. That is about the amount that an individual would have to be earning for their natural contributions to exceed that threshold of $25,000. There is only a small class of taxpayers who could obtain a compound annual salary of $250,000 per annum or more from working in a series of part-time jobs. This could include directors who serve on multiple boards, medical professionals who work in both private and public settings, or other highly paid professionals. Instead of receiving contributions into superannuation, under the legislation an employee may apply to the commissioner to opt out of the SG requirement in respect of an employer and negotiate with that employer to receive additional cash or non-cash remuneration. The second part of the bill deals with non-arm's-length income rules for superannuation entities, which apply in situations where a superannuation entity incurs non-arm's-length expenses in gaining or producing that income. These non-arm's-length rules are designed to ensure that concessional tax arrangements for super funds are not abused. They aim to prevent a fund being used as a tax planning tool instead of how it was originally intended—as a means of saving a retirement income. The amendments seek to remove any ambiguity and ensure that superannuation entities cannot circumvent the provisions by entering into schemes with non-arm's-length expenditure. Finally, schedule 3 of the bill addresses the limited resource borrowing arrangements. It amends the total superannuation balance rules to ensure that in circumstances involving the limited recourse borrowing arrangements the total value of the superannuation fund's assets are taken into account in working out an individual member's total balance. We on this side of the chamber believe that all three parts of the bill are sensible adjustments to the superannuation system and we support it in its current form. We do note, however, that this is not the first time this bill has come before the parliament this year. There was a similar bill before the Senate in June last year. That version of the bill included an additional schedule that would have introduced a one-off superannuation guarantee amnesty for employers who had done the wrong thing in not complying with payments of superannuation guarantee to their employees. That is, they had not been paying their employees correctly. This schedule was not supported by Labor at the time, as it would have retrospectively legislated to legalise employers withholding an employee's entitlements. We assert that paying superannuation is not voluntary. Employees earn it as a matter of right and it should be paid along with any wages or entitlements owed by employers. It is estimated that in our nation nearly three million workers lose around $5.9 billion in unpaid superannuation a year. That is an extraordinary amount. These workers are often those who can least afford it: young or low-paid workers or those with little workplace bargaining power. So we very much welcome the removal of that schedule from this bill. However, we argue that there is a need for the government to act on what has been called 'superannuation theft'. The government should have attached to this bill an appropriate provision that deals with that matter. We support the amendments improving the circumstances of high-income earners, ensuring that they do not unintentionally breach the contributions cap. We'd like to see a lot more work done for average low-income workers, who are losing close to $6 billion a year in superannuation payments. 12:54 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 41 12:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019 41

Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019

Second Reading 41 12:55 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Labor welcomes the provisions set out in this bill, the Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill, for a standing Indigenous member on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Labor believes in the principle that underlies this bill—that First Nations voices must be heard in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on a permanent basis. Historically, Indigenous people have been excluded from water management in Australia. Our First Nations people have deep, highly-valuable knowledge about the behaviour of their ecosystems which should be central to the Murray-Darling's restoration and management. We note this bill only addresses one of the inadequacies identified in the South Australian royal commission where First Nations peoples are concerned. The appointment of a standing Indigenous authority member is long overdue. While Labor welcomes this bill, we note it falls short of the South Australian royal commission recommendation that the authority have two standing Indigenous members. One First Nations voice on the board should only be a first step to deeper engagement and consultation with First Nations peoples in the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin. We note there have been concerns about the drafting of the bill—that it might limit the available pool of potential candidates for the newly created position. We look forward to hearing from Aboriginal communities about this issue in the course of formulating our policy in the lead-up to the next election. 12:57 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019 as well. This bill amends the Water Act 2007 to appoint a First Nations member to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The establishment of the Indigenous authority member position will increase the authority's membership from six to seven members. This new position does not preclude other authority members from being appointed who are First Nations people. To be eligible for the position, an individual must be a First Nations person with a high degree of expertise in First Nations matters relevant to the Murray-Darling Basin water resources. The Greens too are very interested in the way this will be interpreted. Some people may not regard Indigenous people with knowledge as having a high degree of expertise, but it is, in fact, a high degree of expertise because of First Nations peoples' understanding of, for example, cultural flows and relationships with lands and waters. We'll be watching that quite closely. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority plays an important role in preparing and reviewing plans for the sustainable use of the basin's water resources. By putting in place a First Nations board member, this bill makes a positive step towards recognising the unique knowledge and cultural values of First Nations peoples regarding land and water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. First Nations peoples have a strong cultural and spiritual connection with land and water, and their rights and obligations as custodians must be respected. First Nations peoples have been shut out of decision-making about land and water management across this country, in fact, for far too long. We need to look no further than the royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin. The commission heard evidence that cultural flows, which seek to incorporate First Nations values and interests into plans, have been at the bottom of the pile. For decades and decades, First Nations peoples have been advocating for a share in the water market, albeit with limited success. I would like to recognise the efforts of First Nations communities in advocating for their interests and right to have a say in water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. When I held this portfolio, quite a long time ago, they were very active, way back then, trying to ensure that they also were included in decision-making. We need to recognise the unique rights, obligations and responsibilities First Nations people have to the land, sky and sea. We need to ensure that First Nations people have a genuine seat at the table so that their specific, unique knowledge can be incorporated into the critical decisions that are being made about the future of the Murray-Darling and water. Today, the Greens are supporting this bill as a step towards First Nations people's regaining some of this control and ownership. The Greens will continue to support reforms to water governance and management that protect the social, cultural and economic rights and interests of First Nations people. I repeat: we will be supporting this bill. 13:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions and commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 42 13:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 No amendments to the bill have been circulated. I call the minister. 13:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019 42

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019

Second Reading 42 13:01 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019. Labor will support this bill, which amends the National Health Act 1953 to make two relatively minor changes to the supply of medicines. The first change implements a measure from the 2018 budget to recover the cost of the pharmacy approvals process from applicants. The second change aims to continue the supply of PBS medicines following bankruptcy or external administration of pharmacies. The government says this will ensure that access to pharmaceutical benefits at an affected pharmacy is not compromised. Labor have consulted with pharmacists on this bill, and, as I say, we will support it. 13:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 43 13:03 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 237920 Minister, I call on you to move the third reading. 13:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 43

Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019

In Committee 43 13:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have an additional question for the minister. As you're aware, Labor has sought to amend the legislation and been unsuccessful in the changes that we propose, particularly in relation to the opportunities and obligations of trustees to gain relevant information. Our feedback is that funds consider that they will require some level of support or guidance from APRA to assist them in interpreting those obligations, particularly given that the amendment that we had proposed in relation to reasonableness has been rejected by the chamber. I wonder if you could brief us on what discussions you have had with APRA in this regard? 13:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I'm not prepared to talk about discussions with APRA. 13:08 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister, the implementation arrangements for this bill are dependent on APRA. The timetable that's been set out by the government is tight. Indeed, it is less than the timetable recommended by APRA. I'm seeking to understand what advice you can provide about APRA's preparedness to implement the arrangements that are likely to pass the chamber this afternoon. 13:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The bill was originally announced on 24 May 2018. I think everybody in the chamber, everybody in the industry, and APRA and ASIC are entirely aware of this legislation. 13:09 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Do you expect that APRA will be providing written guidance to funds about their expectations if they do seek to utilise the provisions for high-risk fund members that were passed today? 13:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria You'll get a chance to ask APRA at estimates. 13:09 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister, are you telling us that you've made no attempt to assure yourself about that question or that you have no advice to provide funds that might be listening to this debate? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 237920 The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [13:14]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Stoker)

40 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Bragg, A J Brockman, S Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McGrath, J (teller) McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sheldon, A Sinodinos, A Stoker, AJ Van, D Walsh, J 9 NOES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

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

Third Reading 44 13:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019 44

Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019

Second Reading 44 13:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise in support of the Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019. We note, however, that the government's failure to pass this legislation before the deadline that it set for itself—1 July 2019—has placed unnecessary operational burdens on the Australian Border Force. This once again highlights the failures of the Minister for Home Affairs to properly support his department and the important work that they do. Despite this, Labor will support the bill, and we commend it to the Senate. 13:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I indicate that the Greens will also be supporting the Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019. 13:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I would like to thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019. The government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco trade and other black economy activities that undermine legitimate revenues and endanger our community. For this reason the government introduced a range of complementary measures in the 'Black Economy Package—combating illicit tobacco' as part of the 2018-19 budget. This included the measure that commenced on 1 July 2019 to make most tobacco products prohibited imports. These products can now only be imported into Australia with a valid permit, with some limited exceptions such as for international travellers who bring tobacco with them. Tobacco that is detected at the border without a valid permit will be seized. This bill will amend the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs, who is the Commissioner of the Australian Border Force, to deal with seized tobacco products in an appropriate manner, including immediate destruction of the goods. Similar controls already exist for certain other prohibited imports, including seized psychoactive substances and prohibited serious drug alternatives. I note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate pass the bill. It also recommended that the government ensure that, where appropriate, there is an opportunity prior to the destruction of seized illicit tobacco for a relevant party to examine the seized goods or to obtain a sample of the seized goods for potential legal proceedings. The ABF will provide clear guidelines to officers, detailing matters that should be considered before an officer exercises the discretion to destroy illicit tobacco. This will include consideration of the likelihood of future legal proceedings. When tobacco is stored by the ABF for this purpose, examination and sampling will be permitted as appropriate. These amendments will improve the handling of seized illicit tobacco, allowing for effective regulation of tobacco permit conditions and enabling greater focus on the targeting of illicit tobacco. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 45 13:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 121628 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 45

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019

Second Reading 45 13:22 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. Airports are hubs of activity and so can become focal points for serious and organised crime groups, including those involved in the illicit drug trade; and high-profile targets for terrorist organisations. As such, it is appropriate that the powers police can employ at these locations are reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect the ever-changing threat environment. The bill before the Senate does exactly that. This bill will allow the AFP to direct a person to produce evidence of their identity; direct a person to leave the airport or any other specified major airport, and/or direct a person to take a specified flight or any flight from these airports for up to 24 hours; or direct a person to stop or do anything else necessary to facilitate the identity check or move-on direction. These powers can only be used in appropriate circumstances, such as where a constable or protective services officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a territory, or a law of a state having a federal aspect and punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more. A move-on direction must be provided in writing and requires the authorisation of a senior police officer if the direction is for 12 hours or more. This is an important safeguard built into the legislation. I note the history of this legislation and the role that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security played in shaping it. In its original form this bill had a number of issues, including poor drafting and a lack of clarity around the powers that it introduced. The PJCIS made a series of recommendations to the government after the conclusion of its inquiry into the bill. These recommendations sought to address many of the key concerns raised by civil society organisations, such as ensuring that the measures introduced by this bill could not be used to disrupt peaceful assembly or protests, and to provide clarity around the powers generally. To its credit, the government has agreed or agreed in principle to every recommendation the committee made. The version of the bill before us today is clearer and more effective than the original version, and for that reason the bill is more likely to achieve its objectives and enjoy public confidence. It's a timely reminder that, when the PJCIS is at its best, it is a deliberative bipartisan body which positively influences our legislative process and ensures that the Australian people can have greater confidence in our national security laws and agencies. I commend the work of the committee and its members for their efforts, which resulted in important changes to this bill. Labor will always be cooperative and constructive when it comes to ensuring that our hardworking police are fully supported in their work to keep Australians safe, and that is why we support this bill. Given the nature of these new powers, Labor believes it is important that the government reassure the parliament that it will take the necessary steps to ensure appropriate transparency and annual reporting with respect to the identity check direction and move-on directional powers provided for by this bill. To that end, I note that I have questions for the minister and would ask that the bill be considered by the Committee of the Whole at the appropriate time. As such, Labor will support this bill, and I commend it to the Senate. 13:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to say at the outset that the Greens will not be supporting the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. It joins the list of more than 200 pieces of legislation that have passed through state, territory or Commonwealth parliaments in Australia in the last two decades that have eroded fundamental rights and freedoms in this country. If this bill does anything, it mounts a living, breathing argument for Australia to introduce a charter of rights in this country. We are currently the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of either constitutionally embedded or legislatively enshrined charter of rights. And while we continue to lack that fundamental statement of the rights of citizens in our country then major parties—no matter who is in government—in the damaging so-called spirit of bipartisanship, will continue to erode those rights. Now, I want to make one thing very clear at the start of my contribution here. The 2019 bill, which I'll use as shorthand for this bill, is an improvement on the 2018 bill of the same name. We still retain significant concerns, but I do want to acknowledge that the government has picked up a number of recommendations made by parliamentary committees that make this bill a less bad piece of legislation than it was when it was proposed in 2018, before the last election. The 2018 bill could have compelled people to carry ID at all times while travelling by air or, importantly, when picking up friends and family from an airport. This is despite it not being a legal requirement for people to carry ID at all times when they are in public and despite people not being required by airports or airlines to carry ID to travel by air if only travelling with carry-on luggage. The 2018 bill could have led to situations like Operation Fortitude, which was a multi-agency operation in 2015 that would have seen Australian Border Force, police and transport officers using racial profiling to do random visa checks on people, despite there being no requirement for visa holders to carry those documents on their person. Operation Fortitude was cancelled after the public outrage which resulted from ABF's announcement of the operation. As reported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the 2018 bill and its identity-checking and/or move-on powers would have infringed on people's rights to privacy, people's rights to freedom of movement, people's right to equality and nondiscrimination, and potentially the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. As I said at the time, there was absolutely no justification for that legislation, which I described as a papers-please legislation, and the government is yet to mount an argument as to why even this watered down version in the 2019 bill is necessary. It's worth pointing out that the terrorism threat level in this country has not increased for over five years, yet we keep getting pieces of legislation which take away our fundamental rights and freedoms. I also make the point that the departing Director-General of ASIO, Mr Duncan Lewis, has made it very clear that in fact foreign influence and interference in our democracy is a more significant threat to our country than terrorism. And yet we've got a government that continually brings in legislation in the name of counterterrorism that erodes the fundamental rights and freedoms that, in the past, countless Australians have fought and died to protect and enhance. Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator McKIM JKM I've used the F-word, fascism, in this place in the past—and Senator Duniam can have all the chuckles that he likes, but, Senator Duniam, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, if you don't think societies that are, on the face of it, based on principles that are espoused, in particular by the LNP, in this place—personal freedoms, for example, is one of the values we hear a lot about from Liberal and National member politicians in this place— Senator McGrath interjecting— Senator McKIM JKM I can hear Senator McGrath rumbling away in the background again, adding his two bob's worth—but if you don't think societies can transform quite rapidly from places where fundamental rights and freedoms are protected and respected into fascist states, then you are not studying human history. This can happen quickly. It's happened on multiple occasions in human history, and it starts with an erosion of those rights and freedoms and attacks on minorities. We have seen the attacks on minorities who come into this country—the people from countries including South Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sri Lanka and many others, some of whom remain imprisoned in Papua New Guinea or Nauru and have spent over six years there now. We're seeing it in the punitive responses, for example, to people on Newstart, who are going to face the demeaning agenda of this government in requiring them to be drug tested. You attack the minorities, and when people don't fight back hard enough, it empowers those totalitarians, those authoritarians, those fascists in the government to take the next step. Unless we stand up and fight to defend these rights and freedoms, we will continue, unfortunately and devastatingly, on the slow shuffle towards authoritarianism and, ultimately, totalitarianism. That's what this legislation embodies. We're seeing it, for example, in the use of facial recognition technology. We're seeing it in regard to the lack of privacy that 10 or 20 years ago would have seen our country up in arms but now seems to be accepted by so many people because of the actions of the two major parties in this place, which have normalised this loss of fundamental rights and freedoms. So this bill, the 2019 bill, is unwarranted, and the government has completely failed to make the case. What the improvements in this bill, compared to the 2018 bill, have done is mean that instead of a giant step down the road towards a police state we are today proposing to take a smaller step. But it is a smaller step that follows many steps before it and, no doubt, will be succeeded by many steps after it. I want to talk about the so-called spirit of bipartisanship that exists in this place between the major parties on matters of national security. I want to say, firstly, that this bipartisanship does the Australian people a great disservice. What happens with this government, led by one of the most authoritarian control freaks in the parliament, the relevant minister, is that the government introduces a whole suite of new police powers and new powers for our intelligence and security agencies. That bill gets referred off to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I note again, for the record, contains no-one from the crossbench—it's a stitch-up between the two major parties. It goes into that process and, yes, I agree that that process does at times rasp a few of the roughest edges off legislation like this. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of the legislation and the dirty deals that are done in that process. Then out comes the legislation from that process. The fait accompli is then presented to the Senate, and ultimately the bill is passed with support from the two major parties. As watchers of this chamber will know, the Greens have continually pushed back against this agenda of eroding rights and freedoms in this country. We're going to push back on it again today by opposing this legislation. The 2018 bill followed an airport security review in 2017 that was a result of an alleged plot to bring down an Etihad Airways aircraft departing Sydney for Abu Dhabi, which was aborted before the accused reached security. But the report of that review has never been made public. So here we are again, trading off our fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia for vague and unidentified threats because it suits the agenda of the conservatives. I don't expect any better of conservatives, because as a class they're ruled by the amygdala—the lizard brain, which is the fear centre of our mind. The behaviour of conservatives— Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator McGrath interjecting— Senator McKIM JKM There is abundant psychological research on this, Senator Duniam. I refer particularly to Senator McGrath, who's one of the obvious people in this place that is ruled by the amygdala. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 237920 Senator Kitching, on a point of order? Senator Kitching 247512 I would ask you to rule on whether that's an imputation on the character of a parliamentarian. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 237920 I don't think that's a point of order. Senator McKIM JKM As I said, I don't expect anything better from the Liberal Party, but I do expect better from the Australian Labor Party. You can call me naive, you can call me an innocent if you like, but, as someone who grew up in a time when the Labor Party would have stood up for fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia, they continue to disappoint me, and I know that they continue to disappoint millions of Australians who expect and want better from the Labor Party. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security also reported on the 2018 bill. It made nine recommendations, six of which were for amendments to this legislation and two of which were that the Australian Federal Police be required to keep and report on certain records. Most of those recommendations were implemented in this bill, including increasing the thresholds for exercise of powers from the highly subjective aviation security to the less subjective public order and safe operation; increasing accountability and oversight over move-on directions; and providing greater clarity about the status of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and industrial actions. These changes do address concerns that were previously raised by the Australian Greens in the context of the 2018 legislation. I want to make a brief observation around the recommendations that relate to the Australian Federal Police. The government has not, in total, accepted those recommendations. It has merely said it will update its policies and procedures to require certain records to be kept 'to enable annual reporting' but has not committed to keeping all of the records that were recommended and did not explicitly commit to publishing that information annually. In its report on the bill we're currently debating, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said: The new narrower definition of 'public order and safe operation' in the 2019 bill appears to address these human rights concerns. However, it is noted that the proposed powers to require identity information and issue move on directions remain serious from the perspective of human rights. If the bill is passed, continued monitoring of these powers, in practice, would assist to ensure that they are only exercised in a way that is compatible with human rights. That's the view of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. From where the Greens stand, this bill is an attack on fundamental rights and freedoms. I believe in this place we alone will oppose it on the basis that, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government has comprehensively failed to make the case for this kind of draconian legislation. This bill also repeals the term 'constitutional airport' from the Crimes Act and replaces it with 'major airport', which will increase the number of airports that will be subject to these new police powers. Major airports at which the new police powers can be used will, if this legislation is successful, be determined by the minister. The Crimes Act does not contain move-on powers. Various move-on powers do exist under state and territory laws as well as the Aviation Transport Security Act, but this bill will provide move-on police powers that are broader than those under the Aviation Transport Security Act. As I said, we accept that this bill is an improvement on the 2018 legislation, but, ultimately, the changes do not make this a good piece of legislation; they simply make it a less bad piece of legislation. This bill should have been the subject of an inquiry of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, and we're very disappointed that major parties did not support an inquiry into this legislation. On a matter of principle, and I want to state this very clearly, you don't protect the Australian way of life by trading off rights and freedoms. That is the wrong way to go about this. When you do trade away our fundamental rights and freedoms, as we collectively in parliament have done over 200 times in the last 20 years, you actually change the nature and fabric of our country; you change the nature and fabric of our society. You take away those rights and freedoms. I understand why governments want to make the community safer, and I support the community being made safer as long as it is done in a reasonable way, but this is not a reasonable piece of legislation; it's an unreasonable piece of legislation. We have a horrendously high road toll in this country. People are dying on our roads. We could transform that to zero tomorrow by banning people from driving cars, but we're not going to do that, are we, Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 It's a ridiculous analogy. Senator McKIM JKM Exactly. It's an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, isn't it? I couldn't agree more, Senator Duniam, that it's a ridiculous suggestion. Nevertheless, the point remains—when you take away rights and freedoms, you fundamentally transform our country. You've continually failed to make the case, and the only reason that you've been able to do this, which you've done on multiple occasions since the LNP came to power in 2013, is because the Labor Party has acquiesced every step of the way. I heard Mr Dreyfus from the other place this morning expressing concerns about a particular piece of 2015 legislation. Well, Mr Dreyfus, you voted for it. All the Labor members in here voted for it. The Australian Greens didn't vote for it. It's a bit late, four years down the track, to start going, 'Maybe we shouldn't have voted for it.' The one thing that would be fantastic in this space would be if whichever of the major parties happened to be in opposition at any one time ended the spirit of bipartisanship on national security. That would be, of itself, a major step forward—so that legislation would be actually considered on its merits. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McKIM JKM I want to point out for the record that there's lots of laughter and chat going backwards and forwards between the Liberal-National Party and the Australian Labor Party at the moment, proving my very point that this is collusion between the major parties, based on the political cowardice of whoever happens to be in opposition at the time. For the last six years and for the next two, that is the Australian Labor Party. We won't be supporting this bill. We want to see a charter of rights in Australia and, in the last term, we could not even get support from either of the major parties for an inquiry into what form of charter of rights Australia should have. That's how far away we are in this country from any enshrined protection of rights and freedoms at a national level. The lack of a charter of rights and the complicit bipartisanship on national security, taken together, mean that today we will take another small step down the road to a totalitarian police state in Australia. 13:46 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia 'Your papers, please.' That's the phrase associated with the workings of a police state. It's a catchphrase long favoured by Hollywood movies, notably Casablanca, but it's an expression that can trigger dread for those who've had the misfortune to encounter the arbitrary power of an authoritarian government. Regrettably, it's a phrase—or something like it—that we may soon hear at Australia's major airports as someone is taken aside and asked to identify themselves by the Federal Police. That will be one of the consequences, for good or for ill, of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019. This bill was first introduced into the previous parliament by the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, a year ago on 13 September 2018. At that time, it was declared to be an urgent measure, something that was required to remedy security deficiencies at Australia's major airports. The bill was promptly referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which delivered a report, including recommendations for amendments, to the parliament in February this year. Since then, we've had a federal election and the bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 July and passed through that chamber on 12 September. So, a year on from its original introduction as an urgent piece of legislation, the bill is now before the Senate. This somewhat delayed progress through the parliament, in part—but only in part—a consequence of the election, is not uncharacteristic of much of the national security legislation that has been hastily introduced to this parliament. The government declares a bill to be an urgent matter of national security, but then parliamentary scrutiny finds numerous faults and flaws requiring amendment, redrafting and further consideration. In this case, the bill, as originally drafted, was certainly flawed. That was especially unfortunate, because this law has the potential to have a direct impact on more Australians than many other pieces of national security legislation. Airports are a part of everyday life for many of us. We are a nation of travellers, with people flying for business and work, for holidays or to connect with family and friends across our continent or overseas. I recall, perhaps about a month ago, during the last parliamentary break, deciding to go visit—as a senator—Coober Pedy, to the north of my state. Walking into the airport, I went through the regular security checks. I then had my boarding pass scanned and went down to a holding area, where one would normally wait for a bus, and observed four police officers standing around. They didn't say to all of the passengers: 'Please stand over against the wall; we'd really like to do some additional security checks. We're going to run a dog past you. It's really to help you with your safety.' What we got was an Australian Federal Police officer who didn't actually identify himself, although it was obvious that he was a policeman, who stated, 'Everyone against the wall and put your bags down by your feet.' Then a dog was run alongside the bags. I looked at some of the other passengers and they seemed quite shocked. I then confronted the police—or went and talked to the police—identified myself as a senator and simply asked, 'Can I ask what the dogs are doing?' They said, 'We can't tell you that.' I said, 'Can you tell me what powers you are exercising today?' and the answer was a very short 'airport security powers'. I got the bus along with the other passengers and then jumped on the aircraft. The flight to Coober Pedy was about an hour and a half, which gave me enough time to type up some questions on notice for the relevant minister, which I sent when I arrived in Coober Pedy. I might point out that I did also contact the commissioner's office, and we did have a discussion about it. Indeed, it turned out these police officers were being perhaps a little heavy-handed and not operating in accordance with the relevant procedures. It was quite funny, because I had this bill in my bag at the time. I had taken it with me to read on the plane. So there was a certain irony about getting pulled aside by the police. I'm now satisfied, having talked with Commissioner Colvin's office—if indeed he's still the commissioner; I think he may well be moving on, but he was a superb commissioner. As I said, police procedures have been adjusted. I stayed in Coober Pedy over the next 24 hours and I can tell you that I spoke with a number of people, and the topic got brought up. There were people, regular Australians, who were shocked enough by what had happened that they raised it in conversation, many of them suggesting that they had been through Eastern Europe many years ago and had the same sort of treatment. So there's a bit of a danger even in accepting this legislation from the perspective that it's grounded in concerns about national security. That's something that happened to me, to a number of South Australians and perhaps even to interstate or international visitors. As I said, the police commissioner has indeed looked at that and assured me that the procedures will change. Even when not travelling ourselves, trips to airports are routine as we meet or farewell family, workmates and colleagues. Soon, however, as a consequence of this legislation, visitors to our major airports would be well advised to check that they are carrying photographic identification, because they could be stopped at an airport by an Australian Federal Police officer and asked to identify themselves. If a person is not prepared to do that, they'll face significant fines. If they can't or won't identify themselves to the satisfaction of a police constable or if they are judged to in some way pose a problem for aviation security, they'll also be at risk of being banned from their flight and/or summarily ejected from the airport and banned from the premises for up to 24 hours. The government argues that these expanded police powers at airports are necessary to disrupt security and criminal threats. It is certainly the case that our airports are potential terrorist targets and focal points for criminal activity, especially drug trafficking. At present, police can always ask someone to identify themselves if they suspect that a person may be about to commit a crime. If a person is driving a vehicle, they may be required to produce a drivers licence. However, the government argues that existing identity-checking requirements are no longer adequate. The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, has emphasised that the Federal Police have 'no intention of checking the identity of people at random'; instead, they will rely on police intelligence, together with what is described as 'specialist expertise and training'. That said, police officers will enjoy significant discretion to demand identity checks and to expel people in order to safeguard aviation security. Although expulsion from an airport for more than 12 hours will require approval from a police sergeant or a more senior officer, the potential for arbitrary exercising of power is considerable. Missing a flight may involve significant cost for a person who has broken no law but, by virtue of background or association, falls within an intelligence risk profile. But they will have little, if any, redress. Police intelligence—and, indeed, information from our national security agencies—is regrettably far from a hundred per cent reliable. Moreover, these new powers may easily be focused on particular ethnic and religious groups. Some political figures might be keen to encourage that. In any case, de facto ethnic and cultural profiling is an obvious risk. The bill before the Senate today has been amended since the first bill was introduced by the government last year. The government has agreed, if not in whole then at least in part, to the recommendations made by the PJCIS. Significantly, the bill has been amended to include a savings provision to ensure the move-on powers do not interfere with lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action that is peaceful and does not disrupt the safe operation of an airport. The government has further agreed to recommended transparency measures. The AFP will be required to record, and report on an annual basis, the number of occasions at each major airport on which an identity information direction is issued and, similarly, the number of occasions on which a move-on direction is issued. The PJCIS also recommended that the original bill be amended to include, in certain restricted circumstances, the right to seek urgent or expedited judicial review. The government has amended the bill to address what it describes as the broad intent of this recommendation. In issuing a move-on direction, a constable or AFP protective service officer will be required to use an approved form that includes details that will enable a person to contact a Federal Court registry in the state or territory in which the direction is given. The government argues that providing these contact details will assist a person subject to a move-on direction to apply for judicial review or interlocutory orders in relation to the direction. That may be so, but the reality is that the judicial review process is not something that many people would easily avail themselves of. I don't know if anyone in this chamber has been to a Federal Court registry and tried to navigate the extensive number of forms or, indeed, seek assistance from a duty solicitor. It can be quite problematic. In any case, there's no question that the person who is subject to that move-on order will, in actual fact, miss their flight. In some instances—in fact, I expect, in almost all circumstances—there will be consequential financial loss. As it now stands, the bill is an improvement on the original bill, but it is still a measure that significantly changes the relationship between citizens and the police. This bill enjoys bipartisan support from both the government and the opposition, so it will soon pass through this chamber and become law. I would make a couple of points in conclusion— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Order! Senator Patrick, we will now move to question time. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 50 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement regarding ministerial absences. Leave is granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I advise the Senate that Senator Canavan will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator Canavan's absence, Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia; the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development; the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government; and the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. I further advise the Senate that Senator Reynolds will be absent due to ministerial business overseas. In Senator Reynolds's absence, Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Defence; the Assistant Defence Minister; the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel; and the Minister for Defence Industry. Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Disability Insurance Scheme 51 14:00 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Ruston. Can the minister confirm that, because of the government's delays, staffing caps and the lack of services, more than 77,000 Australians with disability are missing out on the NDIS? 14:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia No, I cannot confirm that's the case. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question? 14:01 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Well, it would be nice if the minister knew her job. Yesterday the minister said: … this is a demand driven system. That means that people who wish to access the system do so at their demand. I refer to the case of Ms Shannon Manning from Queensland, whose profoundly disabled daughter, Meadow, has been waiting more than a year to get a wheelchair and hoist. Is this what you mean by 'demand driven system'? 14:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Bilyk, for your follow-up question. As Senator Bilyk would be well aware, it would be completely inappropriate for any of us to come into this place and start to debate the individual, personal and complex situations of an individual person's disability plan. However, I know that the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in the other place, on frequent occasions has offered those opposite, and those opposite in the other place, a briefing on any of these issues in relation to individual cases, because he believes it is appropriate to discuss them behind the scenes. But, as I said yesterday, this is a demand driven scheme, and we will continue, like we do with many other demand driven schemes, to make sure it continues to be funded. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, on a point of order? Senator Watt 245759 On relevance. We're seeking an explanation of the minister's comment yesterday that 'this is a demand driven system'. She has not addressed that. We have given an example and we would like her to explain whether this is what she means by 'a demand driven system'. The PRESIDENT I0Q With respect, Senator Watt, you had a quotation from the minister and there was an individual case claimed and mentioned. I think the minister is being directly relevant to the question in speaking to that question—first, about an approach to dealing with an initial case, and I heard her talking about the phrase you mentioned. Senator Ruston. Senator RUSTON 243273 As I said, we are not going to come into this place and discuss individual cases. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the individual concerned. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, on a point of order? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Can I hear the point of order? Senator Pratt I0T The minister has not claimed public interest immunity as a grounds for not answering this question. You can't automatically just say you don't want to answer it because you're talking about someone's specific personal circumstances, unless you're seeking to use that as grounds for public interest immunity. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, I'll say—at least in my length of time here, which has matched yours—that it is common for ministers to say they are not dealing with individual circumstances of government programs. I believe that is consistent. There is a different process with documents being demanded in Senate estimates. On this point, I think the minister is being directly relevant and I'm not of the view she needs to make such a claim to answer the question in this fashion. Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question? 14:04 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My second supplementary: we'll see if we can get a proper answer. The defining feature of the 2018-19 final budget outcome is the Morrison government's $4.6 billion underspend on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Why is the Morrison government propping up its budget by denying Australians with a disability the care they need, deserve and were promised? 14:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia We are not. Economy 51 14:05 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on the budget repair efforts of the government? 14:05 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Bragg for that question. Indeed, we have kept the economy growing and created more jobs, despite the headwinds we've been facing, and we have controlled our expenditure growth. I'm pleased to report that that's why in 2018-19 our budget has returned to balance for the first time in 11 years. The underlying cash balance in the final budget outcome for 2018-19 is $13.8 billion better than estimated at the time of the budget. Senator Watt 245759 You should be ashamed! The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt! Senator CORMANN HDA The $680 million deficit represents 0.0 per cent of gross domestic product. Keeping the economy growing, boosting employment growth and controlling expenditure growth have been the key features of our budget repair effort. Senator Watt 245759 Are you proud of making people wait for wheelchairs? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt! Senator CORMANN HDA Nominal GDP grew by 5.3 per cent, significantly higher than the 2018-19 budget forecast of 3¾ per cent. This is the third year in a row that the underlying cash balance in the final budget outcome is materially better than anticipated at the time of the budget. Over the past three years the final underlying cash balance outcome was $37 billion better than forecast at budget. Compare that to Labor's last three years in government, when the outcome was $70 billion worse than forecast at budget time. Furthermore, this is also the fifth year in a row—five out of five—that the employment growth outcome is better than forecast at budget time: 2.7 per cent employment growth last year followed by 2.6 per cent this year, well above the 1.5 per cent forecast at budget time— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! On my right and left! Senator CORMANN HDA and well above the 1.9 per cent long-term average. For the second year in a row we kept spending as a share of GDP below the long-run average of 24.7 per cent. Spending as a share of GDP was headed for 26½ per cent under Labor and rising and is now down to 24.6 per cent. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Before I call Senator Bragg, despite Senator Cormann having a very loud voice, I was struggling to hear him. Senator Watt, I did call you to attention a number of times. While there is something about that particular seat that does amplify someone's voice from my experience, I would ask you to spend the next answer pondering silence for a while. On my right they should not be responding to disorderly interjections when I repeatedly call them to order. Senator Bragg. 14:07 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales How does the final budget outcome for 2018-19 demonstrate that the government's economic and fiscal plans are working? 14:08 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What our final budget outcome shows is that our plan is working to create more jobs and is also working to ensure Australians can continue to receive the essential services Australians rely on. Senator Watt 245759 Like wheelchairs! The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Watt, take a breath. Senator CORMANN HDA For example, over the last financial year we have more than doubled government expenditure on the NDIS, increasing it from $4 billion in 2017-18 to $8.5 billion in 2018-19—more than doubled it. In fact, in 2018-19 an additional 150,000 Australians transitioned to the NDIS, taking the total number of participants to about 300,000 by the end of June 2019. We expect that around 500,000 Australians with a disability will benefit from the NDIS over the next five years. Importantly, as I say again, we more than doubled the expenditure on the NDIS in 2018— (Time expired) 14:09 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales What are the key risks to job creation, economic growth and returning the budget to surplus? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q On my right: I would encourage you not to respond to interjections. On my left: I am reminded this a forum for non-government parties. I'm not going to call questions or answers until I can hear them. Senator Cormann. 14:09 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We continue to face global economic headwinds, and we continue to deal with the effects of the drought and the floods on our domestic economy. However, on the back of lower interest rates, lower taxes, higher investment in infrastructure, a more competitive exchange rate and a pickup in the resources sector, we will keep the economy growing, creating more jobs and generating more revenue for government to fund the essential services Australians rely on. I should say that the other risk to our economy is none other than the shadow Treasurer, Dr Chalmers. He recklessly and irresponsibly continues to talk the economy down. His leader appears to be too weak to get him to do the right thing by Australia. Labor has not delivered a surplus since 1989. Senator Bragg was in kindergarten then, and Senator Chandler wasn't even born then! The Labor Party doesn't know how to manage the economy and doesn't know how to manage the budget. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:10 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Japan and members of the Australia-Japan Young Political Leaders Exchange Program, led by Mr Ichiro Aisawa, Chair of the Australia-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Group. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to a slightly noisy Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! The delegation was then seated accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Disability Insurance Scheme 53 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Ruston. Recent media reports have revealed it takes an average of 127 days for a child to receive an NDIS plan from the day they are deemed eligible. In some instances, the wait can be as long as 202 days. Why are Australian children with a disability waiting so long for the care and support they need? 14:11 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much to Senator Gallagher for her question. I explained yesterday on numerous occasions, and I explained earlier—and I think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate just added his contribution—about the extraordinary and exponential increase in delivery of the NDIS over recent times. What I would actually like to draw to the attention of the chamber is what we inherited and what we have done since we inherited this— Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order on direct relevance: the minister hasn't been asked about Labor's policies in government seven years ago. She's been asked about the average waiting time for children with a disability in this country. I'd have thought that she would have sufficient empathy to respond to that question. Senator Cormann HDA On that point of order: in order to answer that question in a way that is directly relevant and to explain where we are now and why, it is absolutely important and directly relevant to explain where we came from as we proceed to implement this very important scheme as quickly as possible, given the bad state of affairs that Labor left behind. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order: I believe Senator Wong was anticipating where the minister was going with an answer. I don't believe that context is always not directly relevant. I am listening carefully to the minister's answer—she's only been speaking for 34 seconds—and I'll continue to do so. Senator RUSTON 243273 As I was attempting to tell the chamber, this is an absolutely massive reform in this area—probably the most massive reform that we have seen since Medicare—and it's being transitioned through. We need to remember that this is a program that requires the investment of the states through that very complicated transition. I would remind those opposite of the Productivity Commission's recommendation that they hold it back for another year to enable the NDIA to get the program up and running— Senator Gallagher ING A point of order on relevance, Mr President: it was not a broad question about the NDIS, its historic origins and its transition to where it is now. It was about the wait for children with a disability. It was quite specific. We've allowed the minister to provide the context; could she please now come to the substance of the question? Senator Cormann HDA A point of order on direct relevance: I know the Labor Party don't want to hear this, but the starting position that we inherited is directly relevant to the reason why we're where we are. That's why, if Labor was interested in the truth, they would let the minister answer the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order: the point on direct relevance you're raising, Senator Gallagher, goes to the part of the question, I believe, where you asked why there are— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Wait! I'm not willing to rule out a question that asks why a minister explaining material that she believes to be directly relevant—and that, in my hearing from this chair, I am not willing to say that that is not directly relevant when the question commences with 'why'. Senator RUSTON 243273 The reason that the waits are so long, as you put it, and have been reduced significantly under this government is the fact that 115,000 people have gone on it in the last 12 months. I will go back to my point, and that is that we inherited a program that was half built when we got it. But the problem was, as was said by the NDIA review, that basically what we inherited from those opposite was an agency that is like a plane which took off before it had been fully built and is being completed whilst it's in the air. We've completed it while it's in the air. If you'd like to have a look at what you left us—and we are delivering on the plan. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I refer to nine-year-old Angus, whose family were left to transport him around the family farm in a wheelbarrow because of the delays with the NDIS providing him with a wheelchair. Yesterday the minister said, 'We should make no apology about the fact we manage our budgets appropriately.' Why is the government propping up its budget position with a $4.6 billion underspend in the NDIS, a fact confirmed by the minister in the House in question time, when children like Angus are waiting for essential equipment like this? (Time expired) Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on the question— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! When I can hear Senator Birmingham's point of order, I'll call him to make it. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Standing orders state that: questions shall not contain: … statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated— As has been made plain on previous instances by Senator Ruston, this government will always receive individual cases from any member of parliament and deal with them respectfully. In this case, though, it is very clear that this person, of course, cannot be authenticated unless the opposition is willing to bring the case to the government. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong? I'll call you when there's silence. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU As I understand the point of order, the point of order is that there is a name in the question. The second accusation, which I do not believe is a point of order, is a suggestion that this is somehow fabricated. I'll make it clear it is not. The name is included because it is a name of a person, and we are asking questions about his circumstances and why it is that the services in a so-called demand-driven system are not being provided to him. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, on the point of order? Senator Cormann HDA I think on this point of order it is quite reckless and irresponsible for the opposition to breach the standing order in this fashion, because the Labor Party actually does know that there is a transition underway which will lead to a full rollout of the NDIS in 2020 and that 115,000 more people are getting it now— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on the point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order: we are not going to disrespect Australians by calling this person a 'kid'. He has a name. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I have granted both leaders at the table some discretion, more than I grant any other senator when it comes to raising points of order. I would ask that it not be stretched further for debate across the table. Firstly, Senator Birmingham's point of order: he correctly read out the standing order. I think it would assist senators if they are asking questions if they provided a reference, as has been done in customer practice to a media report, which allows the claim to at least be verified. This did not do that. I'm not going to rule the question out of order, because it is consistent with past practice that I can ask the minister to answer part of the question. But I will ask senators, if they are going to use examples or case studies, to keep that standing order in mind. One of the ways to address that has been to refer to a report in a media piece so at least, if the minister wished to take it on notice, there would be details. In this case, it would be very hard because I didn't hear reference to an external reference. Senator Ruston. 14:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia At last! As I commented earlier—I feel like I almost need to pull a point of order on myself for repetition here—it is not appropriate for us to be debating an individual case in full public view in this place. If you were genuinely interested in helping out this individual case, you would bring it either to me or to Minister Robert in the other place to deal with. We don't know who this person is, because you're not identifying who they are. So to come in here— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 I'll take Senator Wong saying it's not my problem. I'm actually saying, 'Yes, it is my problem,' Senator Wong. Yes, it is my problem, and I'm prepared to do something about it. But I can only do something about it if you are prepared to go through the right channels, the respectful channels, and actually demonstrate that you care about this child. You could bring the case to me and allow us to deal with this individual issue. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Extraordinary! My supplementary question is: Australia has the slowest growth in a decade, stagnant wages, declining productivity, record household debt, high underemployement and declining living standards. When will the government realise that short-changing Australians with a disability is not an economic policy? 14:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia First and foremost, I absolutely reject the premise of it because we are not short-changing anybody with a disability. But the thing that's actually causing me the greatest amount of concern here is: those opposite, who profess to be the alternative government, obviously don't understand what a demand-driven system is. If you understood what a demand-driven system is, you would understand why this particular program responds to the demand. As we've heard, the actual individual amounts of money per individual program are not reducing. The individuals who are on plans are receiving almost exactly what was expected. However, because we inherited your half-built plane and we've spent the last while fixing it, we knew we were going to end up with slightly lower numbers of people coming onto the scheme. A reflection on the facts shows the number of recipients entering the scheme has been lower, but what we can say— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Climate Change 55 14:22 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann. Over 2,000 Australian businesses have registered at the website This is not business as usual, and that number is growing by the minute. These companies are supporting their employees in taking time off work to go and join tomorrow's worldwide climate strike to tell governments to stop pretending that everything's going to be okay. They're saying to all of us in this place that it's time to confront the frightening climate emergency that's unfolding. Minister, will you, as the minister responsible for the Public Service, guarantee that there will be no retribution or punishment against any Commonwealth public servant who leaves work to attend the strike? 14:23 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Well, let me just firstly say that our government is committed to effective action on climate change. And, indeed, we have a plan. We are on track to meet and exceed our emissions reduction targets that were agreed to in Kyoto by 2020, and we have a plan to meet our emissions reduction target agreed to in Paris by 2030. The next point is that all of the public servants across the great world-class Australian Public Service know what their duties and responsibilities are, and I would encourage all of our outstanding public servants to conduct themselves appropriately, consistent with the rules. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order. Senator Di Natale. Senator Di Natale 53369 I was on my feet before the minister had concluded. I have a point of order on relevance. I asked the minister a very specific question, and it was whether he would guarantee that there would be no retribution or punishment for Public Service workers. The PRESIDENT I0Q You had a preamble to you question. I think the minister was being directly relevant to elements that you stated in your preamble, but he has concluded his answer. You have a supplementary question now, Senator Di Natale. 14:24 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Tens of thousands of school students, uni students, workers, employers, retirees, firefighters and farmers are joining together in 95 different regional centres and capital cities to demand three things: no new coal, oil and gas projects; 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030; and a just transition for fossil-fuel workers. Minister, will you support their demands? 14:25 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, what people do in their private time and their free time is a matter for them. We are a great democratic nation, and I'm quite relaxed about the causes that people want to support. Personally, I'm not in favour of that particular proposition that you've put, because I think it wouldn't serve Australia well. What I would say in relation to the students that you've just referenced, in particular, is that students should go to school. When school is sitting, students should go to school. That is what will prepare them to be the best possible contributors to their communities and our nation into the future. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question? 14:25 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Well, Minister, students are fed up. They're fed up with inaction from your government. These are people who've had a gutful of governments who are in the pocket of a coal, oil and gas lobby and refuse to take action on climate change. Minister, my question to you is: how good are climate strikers? How good are they? 14:26 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I completely and utterly reject the offensive premise of the question. We are focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is Australia's public interest. We are focused on building a stronger economy and on protecting the environment in a way that is economically responsible, because we care about the opportunities for Australians today and into the future to get ahead. We care about that. As I said in my previous answer, I'm quite relaxed about what causes people want to pursue in their private time. That's a matter for them, but I think the position of the government is very clear. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 56 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Computing Network 56 14:27 Senator PATRICK ( 144292 South Australia ) ( ): Mr President, pursuant to standing order 72(2), I have a question for you. My question arises from your joint statement with the Speaker on 8 February and your statement to the Senate on 12 February concerning a security intrusion into the Australian parliamentary computing network. On 12 February you said: I'm not in a position to provide any information regarding attribution of responsibility for this intrusion. It is also likely to be some time before the investigation into this incident is concluded. I will provide further relevant updates to senators as is appropriate. On Monday this week, Reuters reported that our cybersecurity agency, the Australian Signals Directorate, concluded in March that China's Ministry of State Security was responsible for hacking the parliamentary network. Have you now been briefed on the findings of the ASD investigation, when did that briefing take place, what updates can you now provide the Senate and was China responsible? 14:27 The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Patrick and thank you for the notice of this question earlier this afternoon. In the first instance, I am not going to comment on media reports regarding these matters. I do not believe that is appropriate in dealing with such sensitive issues. Consistent with my statement to Senate estimates hearings in February, discussion of specific or detailed and sensitive information in a public forum is not desirable. I will restate exactly what the Prime Minister said at the time regarding this incident and others in the House of Representatives: I do not propose to go into the detail of these operational matters, but our cyberexperts believe that a sophisticated state actor is responsible for this malicious activity. Second, senators will appreciate that it is important that the parliament speaks with one voice on such matters, and just as briefings and management of these issues involve both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and me, the decision to outline further information is something I will always confer with the Speaker about prior to any statement I make or information I provide. I've obviously had a limited opportunity to do so in the time since being notified of this question. However, I can confirm that there have been numerous and ongoing discussions between the Speaker and me and the Department of Parliamentary Services and relevant authorities and agencies regarding the security of the parliamentary network. This remains a matter of the highest priority. I intend to provide a further update at Senate supplementary budget estimates hearings next month. I restate, however, that some of these matters are not appropriately dealt with in a public forum. I can, however, also state that I'm advised there has been no recurrence of the intrusion and the parliamentary network remains secure. 14:29 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Thank you for that. I note you may not be able to answer this but perhaps may take it on notice. In your joint statement with the Speaker on 8 February you advised: There is no evidence that any data has been accessed or taken at this time, however this will remain subject to ongoing investigation. Given the ASD investigation has been completed, can you now advise whether or not information was taken and what the scale of any breach was? 14:30 The PRESIDENT I0Q DPS evidence supports the information provided by agencies, that a small amount of data was taken and that none of it was deemed sensitive. Individual parliamentarians would be contacted by DPS if there were an impact. However, I do commit to providing further information on notice that is appropriate for public dissemination. 14:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Following your statement on 12 February, what further work has been undertaken by the Department of Parliamentary Services and ASD to ensure that malicious actors are excluded from the parliamentary network and that the information of senators and members is fully protected? What further briefings have or will be provided to senators to ensure that they and their staff are fully aware of what they need to do to ensure the security of the parliamentary network? 14:30 The PRESIDENT I0Q Just as the Department of Parliamentary Services worked extensively with relevant agencies in managing this incident, work is ongoing to ensure the security of the network. This work involves both technical solutions and educating users of the network to exercise due caution in, for example, inadvertent exposure of it. As I said in my statement on 18 February, it is now everyone's responsibility to ensure the security of information. DPS is currently arranging briefings for the staff of parliamentarians in October and November to improve cybersecurity awareness. New senators were provided with briefings at the commencement of this parliament, and dedicated briefing sessions for senators and their staff can be arranged on request. There will be further announcements in coming weeks regarding programs to assist users of the network in this regard. Some matters under consideration may require changes to utilisation of the network from members, senators and staff. The Speaker and I are currently considering these and other issues. An announcement will be made following consultation and the development of implementation plans. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 57 14:31 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how today's release of the ABS labour force figures for the month of August demonstrates how a strong budget is continuing to support the creation of record jobs growth? 14:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Chandler for her question. Indeed, the labour force figures released today for August 2019 show that the economy under a coalition government continues— Senator Watt interjecting— Senator Cormann HDA On a point of order: interjections are disorderly. Senator Watt might be from a union background, but he doesn't have to constantly interject at Senator Cash. The PRESIDENT I0Q I have asked Senator Watt on a couple of occasions to count to five after I call him to order. I'm going to now ask him to count to 10 slowly before he interjects and breaks standing orders again. Senator CASH I0M As I was saying, the labour force figures for August 2019 show that the economy continues to create jobs under the Morrison government. In fact, almost 35,000 jobs were created in the month of August, and employment has now risen for 35 consecutive months in a row. This is actually the longest consecutive run of jobs growth in over 40 years. We also continue to see record jobs growth. Total employment is now at almost 13 million. That is a record high. We also have a record number of young Australians in employment, with almost two million Australians aged between 18 and 24 now in work. In the last 12 months 186,000 full-time jobs have been created, and as at August 2019 almost 1.45 million more Australians are in jobs since the coalition was elected to government in 2013. In terms of the participation rate, it is at a record high of 66.2 per cent. What does that say about the Australian people? They are putting their hands up. They are encouraged by the employment growth. They are voting with their feet. As our Minister for Finance—our incredibly successful finance minister, given what he brought down today, colleagues—absolutely has said, they are putting their hands up and saying, 'We are ready, willing and able to work and we have confidence'— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chandler, a supplementary question? 14:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, what further initiatives is the Morrison government taking to allow more Australians to benefit from the dignity of work? 14:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you very much, Senator Chandler, for the supplementary question. Of course, we understand that governments don't create jobs. The employers, industries out there, are the job creators of this country. We put in place the economic framework under which we want them—and they certainly are—to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. Mr Morrison, our Prime Minister, who's on his way to the USA: what has he said to the Australian people? 'We will put in place the right economic conditions so that the economy can create an additional 1.25 million jobs over the next five years.' How are we doing this? By supporting an even stronger economy. Again, our finance minister is returning the budget to surplus in 2019-20—something that, as our finance minister stated, colleagues, when he addressed us earlier, those opposite haven't managed to do since 1989. We understand the benefits of a strong economy and we'll put in place the right policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question? 14:36 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that might risk these record figures? Senator Watt 245759 That might actually work. 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will take that interjection from Senator Watt, who said 'that might actually work'. Senator Watt, guess what? The policies that you took to the election were voted overwhelmingly by the Australian people as those that would not work. They rejected your policies on 18 May. What did they, in particular, reject, colleagues? I think the Australian people rejected Labor's plans to rip $387 billion out of the economy through their big-taxing agenda. That would have affected, of course, the retirees in this country. It was out of home owners' pockets, out of small-business owners' pockets. What Labor and those on the other side don't understand is that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot just tax, tax, tax and then spend, spend, spend. That is how you actually contract an economy. That is how you ultimately destroy jobs in this country. We believe in a strong economy and are putting in place the right— (Time expired) Family Law 58 14:37 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Yesterday the minister supported the inquiry proposed by Senator Hanson into the family law system. My question is: was the Office for Women consulted on the inquiry? 14:38 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator O'Neill for her question. As we discussed in this chamber and in the other place yesterday, the announcement of this inquiry is recognition of the government's commitment to ongoing improvement of the family law system to ensure that it helps families to separate in a safe, child centred, supportive, accessible and timely way. We did move to establish a joint parliamentary committee, of both the House and the Senate, to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the family law system. That inquiry will be chaired by the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, the member for Menzies, who has considerable experience, across his lengthy parliamentary career, with these issues. Indeed, the Senate passed the motion yesterday to establish the committee. This inquiry is going to enable the members and senators who are members of the committee— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, on a point of order? Senator O'Neill 140651 Yes, Mr President. I have, I think, given the minister sufficient time to come to an answer in response to my one query, which was about a particular consultation with the Office for Women. I did not ask about anything else. I would like an answer to that very specific question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, on the point of order. Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order: the question that the senator is asking about is not actually in relation to an initiative in this chamber by executive government. It was a motion moved by a backbench senator, Senator O'Sullivan, supported by Senator Chandler and Senator Bernardi. So in all of those circumstances, essentially, Senator Payne is asked to provide commentary in relation to a backbench senator's initiative. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I wasn't going to rise, but, on the point of direct relevance, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is saying we're asking the minister to provide commentary. We're asking her to advise whether an office within her portfolio was consulted. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. Prior to this specific question—which I appreciate you have emphasised, Senator O'Neill—you did make an assertion about the minister's behaviour in the chamber yesterday, about supporting a particular resolution. I believe the minister is being directly relevant to that part of the question when explaining—what I am hearing as an explanation for the position she adopted. I don't mean to misattribute, but I believe that is directly relevant. Senator O'Neill, on the point of order? Senator O'Neill 140651 Thank you for your ruling, Mr President. But, if I were simply to come to the chamber to ask the question, 'Was the Office for Women consulted on the inquiry?' and did not give you the context in which I was asking that question, the minister would be incapable of answering it. I gave the context because it was required for comprehension of the question, not as an excuse for this minister to avoid answering the question. Was she consulted or was she not? The PRESIDENT I0Q I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. There is an opportunity for debating people's views of answers after question time; that goes for half an hour. It was a relatively specific question, but I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the assertion made prior to the bit that you quoted then. Senator PAYNE M56 Thank you very much, Mr President. This is a matter which those on this side take very seriously. I don't have the full details of the government consultation process with me in the chamber this afternoon. I'll take that part of the question on notice. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question? 14:41 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I do appreciate the minister taking that on notice. Did the Prime Minister inform the minister of his intention to announce the inquiry, with Senator Hanson as chair, before or after he did a deal with Senator Hanson? 14:41 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I don't discuss my conversations with the Prime Minister or other cabinet colleagues in the Senate chamber. It's a matter of longstanding practice. But I would point out that, as I said, in fact, in my answer to which Senator O'Neill so objected, that the inquiry's being chaired by the Hon. Kevin Andrews. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question? 14:42 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Was the minister's view simply ignored by the Prime Minister in his deal with Senator Hanson or is the minister siding with men's rights activists instead of supporting anti-family-violence campaigner Rosie Batty, who says this inquiry is 'completely unacceptable'? 14:42 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I have a longstanding professional relationship with Ms Batty, who helped me immeasurably in the development of the Department of Human Services anti-domestic-violence campaign entitled 'Enough' to support both staff and customers of the Department of Human Services; and perpetrators, frankly, who had experienced, who were victims of or survivors of domestic violence. So my respect and regard for Ms Batty is well known and on the record. As the Minister for Women, in the roundtables that I have been holding since I was appointed to this role in May of this year, it has been my practice to ensure that, at any of my discussions around violence and the impact of gender based and family violence on women and children in this country, there are always survivors at the table, because they tell their story better than anyone, and I respect that enormously. Northern Australia 59 14:43 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator McKenzie. The success of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund demonstrates the Liberal and Nationals government's enormous commitment to regional and northern Australia. Senator Watt 245759 You are kidding! The success of the NAIF? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I asked a senator on my left to start their question again the other day because I missed parts of it due to interjections on my right. I am going to ask Senator Smith to start his question again, and start the clock again, because I couldn't hear part of the question. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Senator Watt might just like to wait for the answer. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator McKenzie. The success of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility fund demonstrates the Liberal and Nationals government's enormous commitment to regional and northern Australia. Can the minister outline to the Senate this afternoon recent developments from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility fund, and how a strong budget will help create jobs and investment in my home state of Western Australia? 14:44 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Smith, for your question, and for your very proud advocacy of your home state and northern Australia. To date, the NAIF has committed $1.4 billion in investment across northern Australia, supporting projects which are forecast to create more than 4,000 jobs and $3 billion in public benefits. NAIF has now approved loans to six projects in WA to a total of $307.8 million. More than 1,300 jobs will be created across these projects during construction and operation. I'm pleased to announce that the Australian Aboriginal Mining Corporation has today secured a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan to develop its first iron ore mining project 80 kilometres north-west of Newman. This $12.5 million loan from the NAIF will help fund the nation's first substantially Indigenous owned and operated iron ore mine, a project that will support hundreds of jobs in the Pilbara. This project will create more than 120 new jobs during construction and will support around another 120 ongoing jobs during its operations. As Australia's first substantially Indigenous owned and operated iron ore mine, First Iron will also offer the region's Aboriginal community significant employment opportunities. The project will provide iron ore to Fortescue mining group's Cloudbreak operations, with the first delivery of ore expected to happen by mid-next year. It's projected to run for at least five years, producing between two million and three million wet tonnes of iron ore each year. The NAIF loan will help to build a range of new supporting infrastructure, including accommodation, a bore field, a crushing plant, and a 55-kilometre haul road to connect Great Northern Highway to the Cloudbreak mine. It's a significant project to demonstrate the NAIF's vital role in delivering infrastructure, creating jobs and boosting the economy right across northern Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 14:46 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Senator Watt's gone quiet! Can the minister outline to the Senate how stability and certainty in northern Australia infrastructure is helping build a stronger economy for the north of Western Australia? 14:47 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Smith. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility board has made a total of 13 investment decisions and two conditional credit approvals. Of those investment decisions, six have been in WA, and 13 projects in WA are going through due diligence. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has approved $308 million in loans for WA, including the $74 million loan comprised of two components for the Beyondie sulphate of potash project, the $95 million loan to Sheffield Resources, and the $16.8 million for Onslow Marine Support Base to widen and deepen the channel and extend and expand the wharf. Mid-last year, the Liberal-National government amended the NAIF investment mandate to increase its flexibility, facilitating acceleration of investment decisions, and improve its potential to support projects to deliver more jobs and economic opportunities across northern Australia. Of the investment decisions made— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a final supplementary question? 14:48 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister advise the Senate what the Liberal-National government is doing to build a stronger economy, deliver better roads, and create real jobs across all of regional and rural Western Australia? 14:48 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Liberal-National government has committed more than $6.8 billion to fund land transport infrastructure projects in WA over the next 10 years. This includes $682 million to complete the remaining two stages of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, and $140 million towards the Albany Ring Road. These commitments will divert heavy vehicle traffic away from the city centre, which will improve freight productivity and amenity for those regional centres. It also includes $535 million for key upgrades in WA under the ROSI, the Roads of Strategic Importance program. These projects will upgrade key commuter and freight corridors across Australia, improving connectivity for regional communities and industries. In WA these projects include the Newman to Katherine corridor, the Alice Springs to Halls Creek corridor and the Karratha to Tom Price corridor. The Liberal-National government has also committed $171.8 million for road projects under the Northern Australia Roads Program in WA. These projects include a whole lot of stuff. (Time expired) Northern Australia 61 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My question is also to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator McKenzie. I refer to the government's flagship Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which was announced in June 2015—two prime ministers ago. Four years on, how much of this $5 billion fund has actually been drawn down to support new infrastructure in northern Australia? How many projects have actually drawn down and received funding from the NAIF, four years on? 14:50 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I have about 20 folders here today. As I said earlier, Senator Watt, the NAIF has got 13 projects underway, including the projects I spoke about to Senator Smith earlier. We've made 13 investment decisions and one conditional credit report. The total investment of the NAIF's value is now approximately $1.4 billion, supporting projects with an estimated total capital value of $2.8 billion, including those getting conditional approval. Investment decisions are for three projects in the Northern Territory, six in WA, and four in your home state of Queensland, Senator Watt. That is $781 million for Queensland, $184 million for the Northern Territory and $307 million for Western Australia. Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann on a point of order? Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, I know it's the last Thursday in a sitting fortnight, but interjections are disorderly, and Senator Watt is a repeat offender. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, I will ask you to cease interjecting on your own question. You have two supplementaries afterwards to follow up. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Combined, the three investment decisions are forecast to generate around $2.55 billion in public benefit across northern Australia, which includes a forecast of over 3,700 jobs, both in construction and during operations. Drawdowns have commenced for three projects. As at 27 August 2019, the department has made total payments of $41.8 million, comprised of $15.7 million for the Onslow Marine Support Base project, $23.5 million to the Voyages Indigenous Tourism Australia project, and $2.598 million to the Humpty Doo Barramundi project. As you can see, not only is the NAIF, under its renewed mandate, approving projects thoroughly—13, as I said—but it's also ensuring that the money gets out the door and that these vital projects get started, providing much-needed construction jobs and jobs in ongoing operations. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, a supplementary question? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank the minister for admitting that, after four years, only about $40 million has actually been released by the NAIF—an average of less than around $10 million per year. Is the minister concerned that at this rate it will take her 500 years to distribute the NAIF's total funding of $5 billion? Is this why, across northern Australia, people refer to the NAIF as the 'No Actual Infrastructure Fund'? 14:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I am absolutely confident that under its renewed mandate, as I outlined in my answer to Senator Smith, by increasing the flexibility et cetera of the NAIF when it's considering projects that come before it we will be seeing faster approval times for projects that are identified and, as those contracts are being negotiated with proponents, the money will start rolling out. But we're not just going to throw the money out. We are not going to give money to anybody that rocks up to the NAIF with some brainstorm of an idea, some far-fetched fantasy off the coast of Darwin or Cairns or something. We set up a process so these projects can be assessed appropriately so that taxpayers' dollars can be spent appropriately to deliver much-needed jobs and economic stimulus to northern Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, a final supplementary question? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Nearly one year ago Minister Canavan said that Queensland was 'poised to generate huge benefit from the NAIF'. Can the minister confirm that not one project in my home state of Queensland has actually received funding from the NAIF? 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria There is the Townsville Airport redevelopment project: on 8 January 2019, the NAIF made an investment decision for a loan of up to $50 million for the Townsville Airport Upgrade Project. The project includes substantial refurbishment to the terminal, more aircraft parking, better road access and an upgrade to core infrastructure as part of— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Watt on a point of order. Senator Watt 245759 On relevance: the question was about projects receiving funding, not being approved for funding. Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order, I think that Senator McKenzie was being incredibly helpful. I would commend to you, Mr President, that you rule the minister is being directly relevant to the question as it was asked by Senator Watt. The PRESIDENT I0Q I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. The minister was being directly relevant. If the person asking the question does not like it they have an opportunity after question time to debate it. That is a matter for debate, I do not think it is a matter of direct relevance. Senator McKENZIE 207825 As I said, there are 13 projects. Several in the senator's home state of Queensland have been approved, and the process— Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann on a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA I am committed to training Senator Watt into compliance with the standing orders! Under standing orders it is disorderly to interject and I would ask you to call him to order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, you've been particularly voluble this week. I'm going to ask you to attempt to restrain your passions for the next 4½ minutes. Senator McKENZIE 207825 So we have the Townsville Airport and also James Cook University. On 3 July a NAIF loan of up to $98 million was announced for a technology and innovation complex at James Cook University. The usual process would be that these proponents come forward with their projects and enter a process of negotiation with the NAIF to make sure that we can tick off with confidence that taxpayer dollars are not going to be wasted on these projects. So they're going through that process— (Time expired) United Nations 62 14:56 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I note that this is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate on Australia's priorities at the United Nations General Assembly meeting next week? 14:57 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It's a great pleasure to take a question from my friend Senator Henderson here in this place, and on such an important matter. Australia's engagement with the United Nations is a very important part of our efforts to ensure a safe, secure and prosperous Australia by working with our international partners to strengthen the rules and institutions that underpin a free, open and inclusive global order. With that in mind, I will attend the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week, beginning with the Climate Action Summit as well as high-level meetings on a range of policy areas, including disaster-resilient infrastructure, followed by India's Universal Health Coverage and the sustainable development goals. These are going to be very important engagements on key policy areas of concern and interest to Australia. We have a great history—a strong track record—of achievement in the UN. We work collaboratively to identify solutions to the world's most intractable problems with our key partners. The international forum of the United Nations is an important opportunity for us to use that reputation, that standing, to lead on these issues that are important to us. The Prime Minister himself will outline our national values and principles in his address to the General Assembly following his state visit to Washington, where he will of course affirm the enduring alliance with our key strategic partner the United States. Our engagement in the UN, where we have been active, creative and effective, including in our position on the Security Council some few years ago, really contributes to the establishment and consolidation of the rules based international order that supports our interests. Our financial contributions, comprised of our assessed and voluntary contributions, our humanitarian and development funding and our peacekeeping contributions, are all part of Australia's engagement across the panoply of issues that have to be addressed through important multilateral processes— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a supplementary question? 14:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister provide further details to the Senate on Australia's particular priorities regarding global security issues? 14:59 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We know that today threats are global in their reach. It's true for terrorism, it's true for nuclear weapons and it's true for cybersecurity. Tackling these threats with our international partners helps to keep Australians safer. At next week's meetings I'll continue our engagement with key partners to develop norms that compel better international behaviour in cyberspace. I'll encourage other nations to join the comprehensive test ban treaty as a step towards arms control and to prepare for the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. These are important confidence-building measures for nuclear arms control. I will also deliver Australia's national statement at the 10th Global Counterterrorism Forum, conscious of the ongoing challenges of combating the threat of terrorist activity in our region and globally, and with particular reference to our hosting of the 2019 No Money for Terror conference in Melbourne later this year. 15:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister advise the Senate on other areas of focus for Australia at next week's United Nations General Assembly? 15:00 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales There are obviously a vast range of opportunities for Australia to engage, but we will particularly use next week's climate action summit to convey Australia's steadfast commitment to the Paris Agreement, stressing that our contribution includes building climate and disaster resilience in the Pacific. I'll also represent Australia on a panel for the sustainable oceans economy, because we know that economic production and ocean protection must go hand in hand. We also take a leadership role on human rights in these fora. In recent weeks I travelled to Cox's Bazar, in Bangladesh, where close to one million Rohingya people from Myanmar have taken refuge. I will be discussing also with counterparts how we can make progress on this very difficult problem and on how we are also able to support the response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Aged Care 63 15:01 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Yesterday I was asked a question by Senator Urquhart about home care providers and quality reviews of home care providers. Of the 929 home care providers currently registered in Australia, there is currently one that is overdue for a quality review, but that provider has had a one-day monitoring review undertaken while that process works through. There is currently one home care provider that is under sanction. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS National Disability Insurance Scheme 63 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked by Senators Bilyk and Gallagher today. What a shameful performance we saw today from government ministers, in particular Senator Cormann as the Minister for Finance and Leader of the Government in the Senate. We saw Senator Cormann, backed in by many of his ministers, including Senator Seselja, come in here and crow about a budget deficit that is 100 per cent built on a gross underspending on the NDIS. Rather than using those sorts of jargonistic terms, let us think about what that really means to people out there in the real world. It means that government ministers came in here today crowing about a budget result—a budget that remains in deficit, years after they were elected—that is built on denying people with a disability wheelchairs, therapy support and other services that they are entitled to under the NDIS. It is shameful enough that this government has denied people with a disability things like wheelchairs and other kinds of aids and therapy, whether it be speech therapy or other types of support such as psychological support—it is shameful enough that this minister and this government have denied that type of support to people—but for them to then have the hide to come in here and crow about that budget result shows what a mean, nasty government this is, one completely lacking in empathy for people with a disability. They have deliberately slowed down the rollout of the NDIS and forced people to wait to get a meeting to develop an NDIS plan, which sets out the kind of support they need. The average waiting time for these plans just continues to blow out and is now running at more than four months. So not only are they making people wait to get a meeting and to get a plan, which determines the support that they need, but, even once people finally get a plan months down the track, they then have to wait months and months and months to get the support that the government has agreed to provide them. The neat little accounting trick that this provides for this government is that it helps them cover up their budget failures and ends up delivering a budget result that masks this terrible cruelty—a cruelty which is being metered out by this government by making people wait for months upon months to get the disability support that they need, that they have been promised and that has actually been funded in the government's budget. If only they would decide to follow through and spend the money that they put aside. In preparing to speak today, I asked my office to give me an update on constituents that we have assisted to deal with the NDIS and deal with the delays that they are experiencing. This is not something that is unique to me. I'm sure that even government senators, in their more honest moments, would concede that complaints from people who are waiting for disability packages under the NDIS are now by far the greater source of complaint brought by people to senators' and members' offices right around the country. Certainly every other member of parliament and senator I speak to says that the No.1 complaint that they receive from constituents is the delays that people are experiencing in getting the NDIS support that they need and that they have been promised. It didn't take long to get some examples back from my office. I will give one. Natasha, from Central Queensland, has a seven-year-old daughter—I won't give the name of her daughter—with autism. They applied for their NDIS package in March last year. By the end of July, she still hadn't heard anything more. She only ended up getting a plan after my office intervened on her behalf, and that caused her seven-year-old daughter to lose months of time-critical speech therapy. And it was only because of the actions of a generous psychologist that her daughter was able to continue receiving behaviour therapy. I could give a number of other examples that my office has come up with within an hour today of people out there in the community who continue to wait for the NDIS services that they were promised by this government. The fact is that this government is relying on hundreds and thousands of—in fact, I think we calculated it's about 71,000—people who are waiting for NDIS packages. It is that denial of services, it is the fact that people are waiting for wheelchairs and therapy services, that is propping up this government's budget. That is a disgrace, and the fact that they come in here and crow about it is even worse. 15:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to take note of the answers given to questions on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I find it quite challenging that those opposite would want to use political point-scoring here. The reality is this is a very important program that exists. In fact, it's one of the biggest social reforms in Australia's history. The NDIS has undergone significant growth, from approximately 30,000 participants at the end of 30 June 2016 to almost 300,000 participants as at 30 June 2019. This is a significant increase, and 100,000 of those participants are receiving support and services for the very first time. To use the plight of individuals in this way, to politicise it, I think is a shameful act that we're seeing from those opposite. Since the commencement of NDIS, the active provider market has also grown from around 3,500 service providers as at 30 June 2016 to more than 21,000 as at 30 June 2019—an increase of 600 per cent. We know that the number of participants entering the NDIS is lower than originally estimated. As at 30 June 2019, there were 298,816 participants who had received disability support from the NDIS. This represents 72 per cent of the original bilateral estimates. The progress has been consistent throughout the NDIS trial and transition phase. The minister, when giving an answer to the question from those opposite, gave the analogy that they inherited a plane flying in the air that was only half built. This government were responsible for building the NDIS and working on the transition with the states, and they have been working on that while it's still flying in the air. They've built the system, and it's now been rolled out. We're seeing the product of that. We're seeing the differences that are being made. Those opposite are prepared just to give an example for political pointscoring across the chamber without any real substance or evidence. We know, as I speak to backbenchers and other colleagues in the other place, that, given the nature of this system—the complexity of it and, of course, the difficulties that those who have to use it are finding—when they bring their issues forward in a constructive way to members and senators, those members and senators are able to take those issues to the minister responsible. And we're hearing from around the country how those issues are going to be dealt with. Of course there are going to be situations. Of course there are going to be administrative problems and issues that come up from time to time. But this government and the minister responsible for this are active in resolving those issues, and I think the minister ought to be commended for the work that he's doing in such a short time. We are hearing that things can be turned around within 24 to 48 hours. Rather than bringing cases into this place and expecting that these issues can be resolved, why don't you bring forward the challenges and the issues in a constructive way? Deal with this government. Bring them forward so that they can be dealt with like we're seeing on our side of the chamber. Despite the best efforts of the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA, as well as Commonwealth, state and territory governments, there are some people who may be eligible for the NDIS who remain difficult to contact and engage with. We are aware of the challenges in this situation and we are focused on that. The question that could have been noted today was the question to Senator McKenzie about the NAIF program. This government were able to announce today a loan that has gone to an Aboriginal owned mining company—the first of its kind in this country—who are providing employment for people in the Pilbara, in my home state of Western Australia. This is where we should be focusing our efforts in discussing these things: how we can actually assist Australians to get ahead and make better use of the resources that they have so that they can make a better future for themselves—rather than this typical political pointscoring that we hear from those opposite. (Time expired) 15:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What we saw in question time today was a real performance of hubris, callousness and disinterest. We saw that from a number of people who participated in question time and now as well. I think the hubris comes down to the way that they are trying to triumphantly declare their economic credentials. Those of us who spend time out on the ground know how tough people are really doing it; but, if you listen to the performance of this government today in question time and press conferences throughout the day as well, you hear that they are acting like Australia is going great guns and everyone should be so happy with their lot in life, because this government are saving the day. We know the reality is different. More importantly, the Australian people know the reality is different for them. But there's also a callousness with this decision as well, because ultimately they made choices about this, and that's what this is all about. They made a choice to underspend in the NDIS. They made a choice for people to suffer longer than they need to so the government can try to claim some economic credibility. That is really disgusting behaviour, as Senator Watt outlined. I think we saw disinterest as well, particularly from Senator Ruston under questioning, where she was not prepared to actually answer the legitimate questions that we were putting to her around the underspending in the NDIS and what it actually means for those people. We were providing examples of what it means for people out there in the community who are suffering as a result of inaction from this government. For there to be an underspend means that people are not getting the services that they deserve and that they need. We outlined that, on average, people are waiting 127 days to receive an NDIS plan after being deemed eligible. They've been deemed eligible and, on average, they are waiting 127 days. Some are waiting as long as 202 days, and I would be confident to say that a lot of those people who are waiting the longest for those plans to come through are in remote and regional areas. I think it is disgusting that they want to try and blame the previous Labor government that started the NDIS. They have been in power for more than six years, yet, on this issue, they are still trying to blame the previous Labor government. Those families who need these plans, those kids and adults who need help, deserve so much better from this government than blaming the previous Labor government. That is absolutely disgusting. I think it's also important to highlight just how devastating the economic conditions are for those people across Australia. If you listen to the hubris from the government in announcing their budget outcome today, they're saying that it's five minutes of sunshine, that everyone is doing so well and that Australians have never had it so good. We know the reality is different, and the Australian people know the reality is different. Let's go through some of the facts that Labor have outlined today that are confronting the Australian people. We've got the slowest growth in this economy since the GFC 10 years ago. Wages are stagnant. Household debt is at record highs. Living standards and productivity are in decline. Today, we learned that unemployment is rising, and we've got the most Australians underemployed, looking for more hours of work, than we've ever had in the history of this country—that's more Australians underemployed than ever before in our history. That includes 228,000 underemployed people in Queensland. As Senator Watt would know and as Senator Green would know—as we spend time travelling around Queensland—we come across these people all the time. I know that they would look at the performance of this government today and be appalled, because we know that the economic reality out there in regional Queensland is vastly different to the hubris and arrogance you get from this government. Australians and Queenslanders are in a tough spot, but this government is continuing to try and bask in the glory of their election win. They're on a victory lap. All they are trying to do is say: 'How good are we? We won the election. Everything is going to be great.' Well, the Australian people need a plan. They know that the economy is struggling. What they want to see is more urgent investment in infrastructure. They know that is going to kickstart economies, particularly regional economies. In this part of the world in Queensland, we know that the unemployment rate is higher—be it along the coast or be it in western Queensland. So I'd say to this government: please have a look at the reality out there and take action for the good of the Australian people. 15:18 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I also rise to take note of answers given this afternoon. I have to say from the start that it is of no difficulty for me to stand up here and defend the government's position with respect to the delivery of the rollout of the NDIS scheme. This is an enormous undertaking, and it's one which the government has handled extraordinarily well. We heard Minister Ruston earlier this afternoon speak to the issue of what was left behind by the Labor government prior to coming into government in 2013 and, very aptly, I thought, she referred to it as being a little bit like a plane that took off before it had been fully built. The NDIS—as my colleague Senator O'Sullivan mentioned before—is now available across all states and territories. Over 300,000 people with a disability have now joined the NDIS, including over 100,000 of those receiving support for the first time. It is, in fact, correct to say now that between 83 and 90 per cent of participants have rated their experience with the NDIS during the transition from 1 July 2016 as either 'good' or 'very good'. The outcomes are also showing significant improvements: a nine per cent increase in independence for children aged between seven and 14 years; a seven per cent increase in assistance with daily living for participants aged 15 to 25; and an 11 per cent increase in accessing community and social activities for participants aged 15 and over. The list goes on. There are significantly improved services throughout the NDIS contact centre. Around 83 per cent of calls are answered within 60 seconds, compared to a four- to five-minute waiting time under the previous model. The average answer speed is now consistently 28 seconds, and the average abandonment rates are now reliably sitting at 1.5 per cent. There is such a long list of improvements that it is almost trite to go through them all. But it strikes me that what we're hearing from the other side of the chamber at the moment is nothing more, really, than a lecture on our dedication to this plan. Our dedication is very, very evident, and we won't be lectured by the Labor Party on our dedication and performance in rolling out the NDIS. This strikes me as being almost like one of those radio shows with a 'guess the sound' type campaign. To me, this sounds very much like the sound of clutching at straws, because we know that the contrast between the government and the opposition is the contrast between a stable and united government getting on with the job with a clear plan and delivering on promises, versus a Labor Party that is conflicted on policy and tarnished by scandal. What we've seen here is, at best, a very thinly veiled attempt to try and attack the government on something—which, really, is quite extraordinary. You only have to look at Labor having left behind a funding gap of almost $5 billion for the NDIS when it was fully rolled out, growing to almost $7 billion a year over the next decade. These are extraordinary statistics. If we had continued down Labor's path, these higher than expected package costs could have resulted in multibillion dollar blowouts in the total cost of the NDIS, putting its entire future at risk. This government has continued to roll out improvements. It has continued to improve. In my home state of South Australia, we're now seeing 30,000 South Australians benefiting from life-changing support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Everyday South Australians' lives are now being changed by the support, and there's significant growth in the numbers of people with disabilities now accessing the scheme—from 11,000 in 2017 to over, as I said, 30,000 in this month of September 2019. It is, of course, important to reiterate, as the government has earlier this afternoon, that the misunderstanding here is the misunderstanding which surrounds the concept of a demand driven scheme. That is really the basis of this. Of course, if the Labor Party were so intent on outcomes, they would deliver notifications of those incidents rather than simply try to score points during question time. I have to draw the Senate's and parliament's attention to all of these matters. Labor just doesn't seem to know what it stands for anymore. It doesn't seem to— (Time expired) 15:23 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Labor knows exactly what it stands for. We stand for people with disabilities getting the services that they deserve and that they need. Seventy-seven thousand Australians with disabilities are missing out, and $4.6 billion has been underspent by this government. In question time, they want to parade around, do their victory lap and talk about all of the great things that they've done, but they don't want to talk about this. They want to talk about anything other than the $4.6 billion that they have underspent. It is very disappointing to have to rise and talk about this, but it gives me a chance to make sure that this Senate knows that this is a particular problem in regional Queensland. We have people on waiting lists in regional Queensland who cannot wait any longer. In Far North Queensland, people with disabilities and their families cannot get the services that they need and that they deserve. That is not because they live far away from a capital city or because they live in a regional area where we can't get staffing; it's because this government has failed to make this a priority. It has made its choice and it has not backed people with a disability. We have some incredible providers and families in Cairns, where I live, and it has been an honour for me to meet them and to talk to them about this issue. I had been doing that for a long time before the election and I will continue to do that as a senator based in Cairns. One of the things that I spoke to people about, providers particularly, was what they felt this underspend said to people with disabilities and vulnerable people. I asked them, 'What message does that send to people with a disability?' They said that of course it was disappointing. But they also said it says to vulnerable people that the government doesn't care. The people that I spoke to—the providers, the people with disabilities and the carers—were quick to point out that they didn't want to make this a political issue, but they had no choice, because this government is playing politics with the lives of people with disabilities. They shouldn't have to wait any longer. There's a particular person in Far North Queensland that I'd like to talk about today. His name is Stevie. He has Down syndrome and he is the brightest, most beautiful person you will ever meet in your life. His carer, his mum, Margie, is someone who gives every single ounce of her life and time in her day to make sure that Stevie has the activities and the services to make his life better. It really does break your heart to listen to stories like that of Margie and Stevie. Stevie is a big fan of CrossFit and loves to do lots of exercise and services, and they can't get the services that they need in Far North Queensland. They live up on the tablelands; it's even further from Cairns. The workers just aren't there. The reason that that is the case is that this government has not prioritised investing in services and lifting the staffing cap. I want to make note of one more thing that question time today made evident once again: this minister is not up for the job. Senator Ruston failed to answer questions about the $4.6 billion underspend of the NDIS. This is on top of comments around the pension being generous. She won't commit to raising Newstart. This government doesn't want to hear about it. Then, a few weeks ago, we found out that she didn't know that people in Townsville were receiving robo-debt notices. When it comes to vulnerable Australians, the government either don't care or don't want to know. They are not up to the job of looking after vulnerable people. This minister and this government are part of a characterisation of cruelty, hiding facts and hiding things in budget papers because they don't care. It's always the way with this government. You open up the budget paper and there it is: the truth; the facts that they're trying to hide. It's the same with infrastructure funding and it's the same with this $4.6 billion of underspent money in the NDIS. Those 77,000 Australians deserve better than this government and better than the performance they saw in question time today. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Climate Change 67 15:28 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) today relating to relating to climate change protests. Well, I've seen some silly nonsense statements in my short time here, but the answer given by Minister Cormann to a great question by the Greens in relation to his support of public servants that will decide to go on strike for climate action tomorrow takes a bit of the cake. He had the cheek to say that schoolkids should stay in school rather than strike for climate action tomorrow. It led me to think: how does he feel leading a government where, when it comes to climate change, half of his cabinet need to go back to school? He's got ministers questioning the fundamental connection between humanity and climate change. These are questions that could be answered by any sixth-grader in any classroom around the country. Equally as farcical in the course of this week has been the Australian Labor Party—the self-styled product of the union movement, whose fundamental, core activity in pursuit of justice for workers has been the utilisation of strike action—informing young people that they should strike on the weekend. My honourable colleague Tim Clifford, the MLC for East Metropolitan in the Western Australian parliament, put that very question to the Premier. He asked the Premier whether there would be any impact for public servants who decided to go on strike on Friday, and the Premier informed him that if they did so they would be striking in their own time, implying that they would be docked a day of annual leave. My colleague Michael Berkman MP, in the Queensland parliament, asked Queensland Premier Palaszczuk whether she supported students going on strike tomorrow, and she informed the chamber that she believed students should strike on the weekend. Never did I believe I would turn up to this place and find a Labor party that doesn't know what a strike is, or a government that contains members in senior portfolios on the front line in dealing with the impacts of climate change who don't understand the same level of basic science as can be found in our primary schools. You might be thinking to yourself: 'For godsakes, it seems like we've got a pretty ignorant bunch running this country.' How I wish it were ignorance. How I wish it were as simple and easy as sitting down—with maybe a brightly coloured book!—and explaining to you people the science of climate change and, therefore, the need to act. But it is nowhere near as simple as that. You cannot be excused by your ignorance, because it is not ignorance. You know exactly what you're doing. You know the connection between human beings and climate change, you know the connection between coal and the climate crisis, you know the connection between gas and the destruction of precious places such as the Great Barrier Reef, and you choose not to act. You choose not to act because you are bought and paid for by the very fossil fuel interests who are the perpetrators of the climate crisis. We see it never more clearly than in a WA Labor government that couldn't even bring themselves to back their own environmental protection agency when it made the radical suggestion that coalmines be made to counter their emissions during their lifetimes—that they simply put in place measures to counteract the emissions they might be responsible for. That was shot down in two seconds by the Labor Premier. It just goes to show that, whatever colour the party is, if it takes money from fossil fuel interests then it can't be trusted on climate change. Question agreed to. BUDGET 68 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 68 15:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to estimates: Additional estimates 2016-17—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 5 December 2018 and 17 December 2019—Defence portfolio. Budget estimates 2019-20—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 3 July and 17 September 2019—Defence portfolio. BUDGET 68 BUDGET Statement and Documents 68 15:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table the following document: Final budget outcome 2018-19—Report by the Treasurer (Mr Frydenberg) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann), dated September 2019. BILLS 68 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 68

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

First Reading 68 15:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X 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 68 15:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2019-2020 The parliament passed the 2019-20 Supply Bills before the election, to facilitate the continuation of normal Government business through until the end of November (around the end of the Spring parliamentary sittings). At the same time, for transparency about funding for the balance of the year, we also introduced Annual Appropriation Bills for scrutiny by the Estimates Committees. Following convention, the pre-election version of the Annual Appropriation Bills then lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. The re-introduced Appropriation Bill(No.1)2019‑2020, together with Appropriation Bill(No.2)2019‑2020 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.1) 2019‑2020, form the principal Bills underpinning the Government's Budget. These Bills are substantively the same as the Bills of the same names that were introduced into the previous Parliament in April this year. Minor changes have been made between the pre-election and post-election versions of these Annual Appropriation Bills to reflect new machinery of government changes resulting from the Administrative Arrangements Order and new decisions made since the 2019‑20 Budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019 ‑2020 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $58.4 billion. The provisions in the Bill seek authority for appropriations broadly equivalent to 7/12ths of the 2019-20 annual appropriations and other measures. Together with the Supply Act (No.1) 2019-2020, this Bill provides appropriations for the ordinary annual services of Government for the full year of 2019-20. I will now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill. First, the Department of Defence will receive just over $19.7 billion to protect and advance Australia's strategic interests through the provision of military capabilities, the promotion of security and stability, and the provision of support to the Australian community in accordance with Government direction. Included in this amount is funding to support ongoing major Defence operations including Operations OKRA, ACCORDION, HIGHROAD, RESOLUTE, and MANITOU. Second, the Department of Health will receive approximately $6.3 billion to continue to strengthen health services for all Australians. This will include funding for: new medical research including administration of the Medical Research Future Fund; better mental health and drug and alcohol support services including the expansion of the national headspace network; further support for improved access to quality of aged care residential and home care services; and workforce priorities, improved access to medicines and implementing the Sport 2030 National Sport Plan. Third, the Department of Social Services will receive just under $5.6 billion, including funding for the Commonwealth's contribution to the Fourth Action Plan to prevent violence against women and their children, the expansion of the Cashless Debit Card to tackle drug, alcohol and gambling misuse, and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. Fourth, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive just under $3.2 billion to advance Australia's international strategic, security and economic interests and to manage and distribute Australia's Official Development Assistance. Fifth, Services Australia will receive just under $2.7 billion to support individuals, families and communities to achieve greater self-sufficiency; and providers and businesses through convenient and efficient service delivery. Sixth, the Department of Home Affairs will receive just under $2.5 billion, which includes funding for national security, the management of non-citizens within onshore and offshore detention, facilitation of people and goods across the border, and the provision of refugee and humanitarian assistance. Finally, the Australian Taxation Office will receive just over $2.1 billion to manage Australia's taxation and superannuation systems, including through helping people understand their rights and obligations, improving ease of compliance and access to benefits, and managing non-compliance with the law. In particular, the Bill contains funding for the continuation of the Corporate Tax Avoidance Taskforce and the expansion of Single Touch Payroll. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2019-20 Portfolio Budget Statements. APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2019-2020 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019 ‑2020, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019‑2020 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019‑2020, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for this financial year. These Bills are substantively the same as the Bills of the same names that were introduced into the previous Parliament in April this year. Minor changes have been made to reflect new machinery of government changes resulting from the Administrative Arrangements Order and new decisions made since the 2019‑20 Budget. This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $7.4 billion. This broadly represents seven-twelfths of the estimated 2019-20 annual appropriations and new measures since the 2019-20 Budget. Together with Supply Act (No. 2) 2019‑2020, this Bill provides appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of Government for the full year of 2019‑20. I will now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill. First, the Department of Defence will receive just over $2.3 billion to enable the purchase of military equipment and the construction of support facilities and infrastructure, in line with the commitment to invest in Australia's strategic capabilities outlined in the 2016 Defence White Paper. Second, the Department of Communications and the Arts will receive just over $1.7 billion to continue to provide NBN Co. Limited with a Government loan on commercial terms to support the completion of the National Broadband Network. Third, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development will receive approximately $1.3 billion, including equity investment for the delivery of Western Sydney Airport and Inland Rail, concessional loan funding for the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, and payments to the states made through the Roads to Recovery Program. Finally, the Department of Agriculture will receive $295 million for concessional loans to farm businesses. This includes loans for those affected by drought or the North Queensland floods. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill and the 2019-20 Portfolio Budget Statements. APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2019-2020 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019 ‑2020 provides appropriations for 2019‑20 for the operations of: the Department of the Senate; the Department of the House of Representatives; the Department of Parliamentary Services; and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This Bill is substantively the same as the Bill of the same name that was introduced into the previous Parliament in April this year. Together with Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1) 2019‑2020, this Bill provides appropriations for the expenditure of the Parliamentary Departments for the full year of 2019‑20. The most significant item in this Bill is for the Department of Parliamentary Services, which will receive almost $126 million for the maintenance of the Australian Parliament House, and to support the functions of Parliament and parliamentarians through the provision of professional services, advice and facilities. This amount also includes funding to replace the original Australian Parliament House auxiliary power system to ensure the continued supply of power for critical systems and to upgrade the mobile phone antenna for the benefit of building occupants and visitors. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the 2019-20 Portfolio Budget Statements. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019 70

Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019

First Reading 70 15:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 70 15:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— MIGRATION AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING THE CHARACTER TEST) BILL 2019 The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 is to strengthen the current legislative framework in relation to visa refusals and cancellations on character grounds. This Bill ensures that non-citizens who have been convicted of serious offences, and who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community, are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation. The Bill presents a clear message to all non-citizens that the Australian community has no tolerance for foreign nationals who have been convicted of such crimes. The number of people crossing the Australian border is rapidly increasing, and while this brings overwhelmingly positive benefits for our country, it also enables threats to our security. Australia is an accessible and attractive destination to visit, to do business and to live. We are a welcoming, multicultural, open and cohesive society. At the same time, we need to ensure that we remain safe and secure. Consistent with community views and expectations, the Australian Government has a low tolerance for criminal behaviour. Entry and stay in Australia by non-citizens is a privilege, not a right, and the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they do not abide by the rule of law. Those who choose to break the law and fail to uphold the standards of behaviour expected by the Australian community should expect to lose that privilege. Following 115 public submissions, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's report on migrant settlement outcomes titled 'No one teaches you to become an Australian' noted that strengthening the character provisions will make Australians feel safer and be safer. The Committee has more recently urged the Government to pass and enact this Bill in their report on review processes associated with visa cancellations made on criminal grounds, noting this important legislation addresses community concerns around non-citizens who commit acts of violence in Australia. The Bill will amend section 501 of the Migration Act to provide that a person will objectively not pass the character test if the person has been convicted of a designated offence which carries a maximum sentence of not less than 2 years. I and my delegates within the Department will then have the discretion to consider cancelling or refusing a visa on that basis. By strengthening the character test in this way, I and my delegates will have a clear and objective ground with which to consider cancelling the visa of, or refusing to grant a visa to, a non-citizen who has been convicted of offences that involve: violence against a person, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary, and the threat of violence, non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, using or possessing a weapon, or breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person. In making a decision to refuse or cancel a visa on this ground, the Department will need to take into account a wide range of factors contained within a binding Ministerial Direction, that include: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; the best interests of minors in Australia; expectations of the Australian community; Australia's international obligations; the impact on victims; and the nature and extent of the person's ties to Australia. In summary, this Bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community—that entry or stay in Australia is a privilege, granted only to those of good character. Like the Australian community, the Government has no tolerance for non-citizens who are found to have committed these serious crimes. We make no apologies for protecting the Australian community from these harmful people, and we will act quickly whenever we are made aware of it. I commend this Bill to the house. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE AMENDMENT (WORK TEST) BILL 2019 The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019 (the Bill) introduces changes to the work test for Paid Parental Leave aimed at better supporting working mothers to access the Paid Parental Leave scheme. There are around 300,000 births in Australia each year, with nearly half of all new mothers accessing Paid Parental Leave. The scheme provides eligible working parents with 18 weeks of payment at a rate based on the national minimum wage, currently $740.60 per week—a total of $13,330.80 over 18 weeks. The Australian Government understands the important role of Paid Parental Leave in supporting the health and wellbeing of mothers and babies and in encouraging workforce participation. To this end, the measure in this Bill is designed to support more working mothers to access Paid Parental Leave. The Government considers that working parents should be entitled to paid leave to spend important bonding time with their newborn or newly adopted child in those important early months. This Bill provides for a more generous work test to make it fairer for women who have a long and genuine working history yet still often fail the work test because of the industry in which they are employed. From 1 January 2020, a longer break between two working days will be allowed under the Paid Parental Leave work test rules. To meet the current Paid Parental Leave work test, a parent must have worked 330 hours in 10 of the 13 months before the child's date of birth. A parent can have a break of up to eight weeks between two working days in this period and still satisfy the present work test. In some professions, such as teaching, there may routinely be a longer break between two work days, which prevents mothers from accessing Parental Leave Pay, despite having a legitimate attachment to the workforce. For example, it is not uncommon for casual teachers to finish work a week or two early towards the end of a school year. However, if these teachers do not recommence work until a few weeks into the next school term, they could easily exceed the current eight week rule, even if they had worked continuously throughout the rest of the year. So, although these hard working casual teachers have worked most of the previous 13 months before the birth of their child, they are unable to access Paid Parental Leave because of the design of the school year and miss out on up to 18 weeks' paid leave. The Government believes that these working mothers should be entitled to paid leave to allow them time to recover from the birth, bond with their baby and receive the health and developmental benefits that the Paid Parental Leave scheme can help facilitate. Hopefully to return to teaching sometime in the future, with the important role of educating our children. To address circumstances such as those faced by casual teachers, the permissible break between two working days will be increased to 12 weeks. This change will make sure more women with a genuine connection to work are able to access the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is estimated that this change will enable up to an additional 180 mothers to receive Paid Parental Leave each year. To further enhance the fairness of the Paid Parental Leave system, the work test rules will also be modified to take into account circumstances where pregnant women are in occupations where it would be unsafe for them to continue working during their pregnancy, so that they are able to get Paid Parental Leave. Currently, a pregnant woman may not meet the work test because she needs to cease work due to the hazardous nature of her job, despite the fact that she may have a long history and attachment to the workforce. While most women are covered under the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows pregnant employees to move to a safe job or receive 'no safe job' leave, there are a small number of circumstances where women miss out. For example, construction workers, miners and jockeys often work on contracts and do not have employers who can provide them with alternative safe work. To address these circumstances, women in these situations will have their work test period calculated from the date they ceased work due to the hazardous nature of their occupation, rather than from the date of the birth of their child. For example, female jockeys are only able to work until the end of the first trimester, meaning they have to stop work 28 weeks before the expected birth of their child. Under the current eligibility rules, female jockeys are unable to access Paid Parental Leave unless they can find temporary employment in another industry. Under the new rules, the work test would begin 392 days immediately before the day on which the mother ceased work because of the hazards in her job, meaning more jockeys and women in dangerous industries will now be eligible. Allowing mothers in such situations to have the work test based on the date they had to stop work is estimated to help around 20 additional mothers per year access the scheme. It was never the intention of the Paid Parental Leave scheme that a mother should miss out because the nature of her job poses a risk to her and her child's health. These important changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme are about improving the fairness of the current system and providing support for genuine working mothers. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 72

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019

Returned from the House of Representatives 72 COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Membership 72 15:37 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 15:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: Australia's Family Law System—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Senator Ayres Environment and Communications Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into the Product Stewardship Amendment (Packaging and Plastics) Bill 2019 Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology—Select Committee— Appointed—Senator Patrick Road Safety—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Senator Gallacher Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019 73

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019

Second Reading 73 15:38 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Last week I was pleased to reintroduce the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels. The bill responds, in part, to a recommendation made by the Economics References Committee in its inquiry into non-conforming building products. Senators would be reminded that that committee straddled the 44th and 45th parliaments. It was initiated by former Senator Xenophon and taken up by former Senators Madigan, Ketter and others in response to the Lacrosse fire. I wish to take this opportunity today to speak further about the building cladding issue, which is unquestionably one of the most serious threats to public safety across Australia. This is an issue that requires urgent attention from federal, state, territory and local governments. As Senators will recall, this issue first came to attention in this country on 25 November 2014, when the Lacrosse building in Docklands, Melbourne, caught fire. The entire exterior of the building clad in polyethylene core aluminium composite panels allowed the fast-moving fire to race up several floors, vertically up the outside of the building. It was only through great good fortune, and the professionalism and quick actions of the emergency services, that no lives were lost. In fact, I will go back to the testimony that was given by Mr Dalrymple, Acting Deputy Chief Officer, Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, before the committee. He talked about the fire and said that that fire alone could have 'claimed hundreds of lives if things had turned out a little differently'. He said: We were probably really lucky that did not happen on that occasion. What we are saying here is that fire safety really should not be a matter of good luck. The fire started on a balcony from an unextinguished cigarette—an innocuous type of thing, you would think. This set fire to the cladding, and the panelling itself allowed the fire to travel the full extent of the building—23 levels in 11 minutes. That is something we have never, really, seen before. We would say this should not have been allowed to happen. He went on to say: In 31 years as a firefighter and 20 years as a fire safety specialist I have never seen a fire like this—in my lifetime—and I have made it my business to study fires of this nature, so we can get a better outcome for firefighters in the community. We have grave concerns about the use of non-compliant product and that it may result in disastrous loss of life, and we cannot tell you when the next event is going to happen. Of Lacrosse, he said: This is a modern building, constructed within the last five years. It has been a valid assumption, up until now, that newer buildings are relatively safe and probably safer than old ones. From a fire services perspective, right now, I cannot guarantee that and I cannot, categorically, state that that is a true fact. So here we have someone who has worked in firefighting for decades making a fairly serious statement about the dangers of cladding. I think people understand the danger of this ACP flammable cladding, but they may not understand the severity of it. I wanted to read that to make sure everyone in this chamber understands what we are talking about. As it was, levels 6 to 21 of the building were affected by fire and many more were affected by water damage. Between 450 and 500 people required immediate evacuation and alternative accommodation. Two-and-a-half years later, in June 2017—and I'm sure people remember this day—fire consumed the Grenfell Tower block in London. Again, flammable cladding fuelled a fast-moving fire, this time leading to a disaster which caused 72 deaths, left more than 70 people injured and required the evacuation of 220 residents. Most recently, on 4 February this year, the Neo 200 apartment tower in Spencer Street, Melbourne, also caught fire. Again, flammable cladding was the cause of the fire moving rapidly, vertically up the outside of the tower. Fortunately, the emergency services were alert to the danger and again moved with great speed to bring the fire under control and avoid fatalities. No-one should underestimate the danger that continues to be posed by the many hundreds of buildings, many of them multistorey, that are clad in flammable polyethylene aluminium composite panels. Evidence given to the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into non-conforming building products revealed these composite panels are so combustible that, in the event of a fire, one kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as 1½ litres of burning petrol. We need to understand that when we put this cladding onto buildings, it is like wrapping them in petrol. Despite this danger, very little has been done in the nearly five years since the Lacrosse tower fire. 'Hurry up and wait' would seem to be a good description, but it's at the expense of people's safety. The federal government needs to act and ban this dangerous product to ensure that the Australian building industry is not detrimentally affected, and Australian homes are safe and fit for occupation. The inquiry found that there are many places where this material can inadvertently end up on a building. It could be that the material that might be made in a foreign country is falsely certified. It could be that the material that is selected by the architect is wrong. It could be that the builder decides, 'I want to cut some costs here,' and instead of using the non-flammable cladding, they pick up the cheaper, flammable cladding and it ends up going onto a multistorey building—even though it's unlawful on multistorey buildings. By the way, I would point out that there have been some changes made to laws that also prohibit using it on single-storey buildings. Once it makes its way on to these buildings, it's not possible for the building surveyor to somehow determine whether it is flammable or non-flammable. So, in some senses, that's why this bill seeks to ban the import of the material, because there are just too many ways in which this material can make its way onto a building—just too many ways. By banning the material, we will get rid of 90 per cent of the material that comes into the country. I accept that doesn't solve the false certification problem, but we can chip away at that as well. A number of building audits have been conducted around the country by state governments. An audit conducted by the Victorian government discovered 22 properties are 'at extreme risk of fire' and 500 homes are considered 'at the highest risk of fire'. As a result, the Cladding Safety Victoria agency has been established to oversee the reparation work over the next five years. I take my hat off to the state government for doing this, although I note that the federal government has refused to weigh in and help financially. An audit has also been done in my home state of South Australia. Disgracefully, the South Australian government has refused to release the list of buildings and homes in the state that contain highly flammable cladding. One of the claims that has been made by the government for not releasing this material is that it would 'result in the use of that information by terrorists'. Of course terrorism is a significant threat, but terrorist related arson events are few and far between. There have been reports of cases of deliberate ignition of fires to advance a political objective. One published security study identified that between 1968 and 2005 only 56 terrorist groups worldwide employed deliberate arson as a tactic. That is fewer than two cases a year worldwide over 30 years, so it's not necessarily the choice of terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. While it can't be dismissed as a potential threat, politically motivated arson doesn't appear to be in the first chapter of jihadist and other terrorist manuals. Of course the general threat of arson can't be dismissed, but surely the biggest threat comes from the risk of accidental ignition in at-risk buildings where residents are uninformed about the circumstances. Secrecy doesn't help people living in buildings that may be a fire-trap. Earlier this week, the South Australian infrastructure minister, Stephan Knoll, tried to justify the refusal to release information to the public, citing the risk of terrorism. Basically, the South Australian government knows that there is a problem but is hiding behind secrecy. Secrecy doesn't deal with the problem. I was informed this afternoon by my MLC colleague in South Australia the Hon. Frank Pangallo that he has sought to gain access to a whole range of documents under FOI. The government, once again trying to refuse access to public safety information, simply claimed that the request was too voluminous. I'm happy to report that the budget and finance committee of the South Australian parliament has now ordered the government to hand over all of the documents that had been requested under FOI, because this is such an important safety issue. The problem we have, and I've talked to many in this place, is that the government suggest that we can't stop the import of this material, because it's used in caravans, signs and so forth. The government say, 'Those industries are important. We need to look after them.' I understand that we need to do that, but there are alternatives. The problem is that the federal government will claim, correctly, that in actual fact the building codes are a state issue. I accept that. They are. But we have a Building Ministers Forum. We have been trying to address this, but it has taken five years—five years since the Lacrosse fire—to do essentially nothing. That's why we now have to seriously consider this measure. There is support building around the country to stop the import of this flammable cladding, because governments have just spun the wheels. They haven't moved on this. Whatever rebuttal comes from the government in this debate, just keep in the back of your mind that nothing is being done—all talk; no walk. That is the problem. Lives are being put at risk because of the inaction of public officials and parliamentarians, and by ministers in particular. One of the good things that would come from the identification of the buildings, if the South Australian government were to release this public safety information, as they should, is that it would probably prompt people to deal with the issue. I understand that dealing with the issue would be costly, but that's no reason to keep this information secret. It's no reason to keep the people who are occupying or working in these buildings in the dark and ill-informed about the situations that they place themselves in. If particular buildings are identified as being high-risk residences, the occupants should be notified and fully informed. If security is an issue, then governments are duty bound to take the necessary measures to ensure public safety. That should be done through the prompt removal of flammable cladding installations or the installation of improved fire suppression systems or, if necessary, improved building security measures. The veil of official secrecy isn't going to help, especially in the case of South Australia, where one must wonder whether the horse hasn't already bolted. After all, in October 2017 documents released to the Adelaide Advertiser under FOI revealed that almost 200 buildings in Adelaide's CBD were identified as being of concern and potentially built with aluminium composite panels. Moreover, in February 2018 the Adelaide City Council released a map of those 195 buildings identified as being of concern. If terrorism were the primary problem, there is already enough information in the public domain to help a politically motivated arsonist. At this point the official suppression of details of specific buildings at risk only inhibits efforts to address the reality of this critical safety problem. As I indicated, there have been some FOIs in relation to this. Maybe—hopefully, through the South Australian parliament and the efforts of my colleague and, indeed, Labor MLC members in South Australia—we may get to see these documents to keep people informed. It's totally unacceptable that the state minister, Minister Knoll, is keeping this information from the public. But I bring the conversation back to this bill. This bill is necessary because after five years we have been unable to solve a problem, and this problem puts people's lives at risk. We don't know when the next fire will occur, but we can stop this material coming into the country and making its way onto buildings, making them unsafe for Australians, for South Australians, for all of us. We know that some of this cladding has made it onto the Adelaide Convention Centre, so it might not even be Australians; it may well be visitors who we invite here and who should rightfully expect that when they come here they are safe. It's with that all in mind that I put to this chamber that we do need to act. We do need to look at this bill very seriously because it seems to be the only way in which we'll get proper movement to help solve this problem—certainly moving forward. And so I commend this bill to the Senate. 15:57 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I rise this afternoon to speak in this general business debate on the bill moved by Senator Patrick, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. I may disappoint Senator Patrick with some of my comments, but he can take it up with me tomorrow when we're in Melbourne. Australians do deserve peace of mind when they purchase a unit or a building, and the safety and welfare of all Australians is this government's main priority. Indeed, since 2013, when we were elected after the previous Labor government, when you look at the actions of this government, you see they have all been about providing security to Australians and ensuring their safety, whether through ensuring our borders are safe or through making sure that we have an economy that is stable and safe and provides jobs for people. The problems in the building industry actually are a result of noncompliance due to a lack of enforcement of the National Construction Code, and I'm not falling into the trap in terms of a hospital pass, but they are state and territory government issues. I stand here talking in this debate this afternoon as someone who is a constitutional conservative and a federalist. I know that Queenslanders and senators for Queensland are concerned about how more and more powers are seeping down to Canberra. Under any federal government, regardless of the colour, I am someone who believes that we should be devolving power back to the states and territories. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator McGRATH 217241 I will take the interjection from Senator Watt in terms of the Palaszczuk—it should be the Trad Labor government, actually. I don't know where the Deputy Premier of Queensland is at the moment. I think we should put out a search party for her. Senator Scarr 282997 She's probably looking to buy another house! Senator McGRATH 217241 She's probably looking on realestate.com.au at the moment! Senator Watt 245759 She's in parliament! Senator McGRATH 217241 Senator Watt may be to answer this question, if he's going to make a contribution, in terms of whether she's actually listed for sale her property at Woolloongabba that she bought for three-quarters of a million dollars via text message with her husband. I am sure that the Deb Frecklington and Tim Mander government, who will be elected on 31 October, in about 400 days time, will be a government that will stand up for Queensland. They'll be a government that will make sure that, in terms of issues such as this, in Queensland the National Construction Code is something that is enforced. Going back to my point before Senator Watt rather helpfully interrupted me: it is important that we understand that because the federal government does not have the constitutional power to regulate the built environment—that is a state government responsibility. We instead will work cooperatively with state and territory governments. And, indeed, the Liberal-National coalition government is providing leadership in this space by convening the Building Ministers Forum to facilitate a nationally consistent approach and restore confidence to the building construction sector in Australia. It's very important that, if you are someone who believes, as I do, in devolving power, taking power away from Canberra and giving it back to the states and territories or ensuring that you do not take more power away from the states and territories, you work cooperatively through all three levels of government, because local government also has a role to play here. We shouldn't forget that the building construction industry is one of the key sectors of the Australian economy. And, sadly, in our home state—and Senator Scarr is here—the aforementioned Labor government, the Palaszczuk-Trad government, just aren't a very good government. They're a terrible government actually. I would be misleading the Senate if I said they weren't a very good government. They are actually a terrible government. Being a proud Queenslander, I don't like it when people tell Queenslanders what to do, and I certainly won't tell New South Wales people or even great senators from the state of South Australia what to do. But, in Queensland, we are being let down by our state Labor government. We are being let down by the leadership, or lack of leadership, they are showing in terms of the economy. Senator Patrick 144292 I thought it was New South Wales who had the spill? Senator McGRATH 217241 Mind you, they are bad—I'm going a bit off piste here at the moment, Senator Patrick—but one of the Victorian state Labor ministers today said they won't be building any dams. I don't know who this minister is, but they're clearly an idiot, and I've said so on my social media. We are in the midst of a devastating drought, and Labor's approach to this is to put their head not in a bucket of water but in a bucket of very dry sand and not deal with the reality of the situation. Back to my state Labor government and the failure of leadership that they are showing for the construction and building sector: Senator Scarr, being someone who spends a lot of time travelling around rural and regional Queensland, will understand that the lack of leadership in this sector is hurting jobs in Queensland. We have, I think, the highest unemployment rate in the country. Senator Scarr 282997 New taxes. Senator McGRATH 217241 The new taxes are coming in—I think there are five new taxes, or it could be 10 new taxes. With Labor, you can never be sure, because they certainly like to tax everything that moves. With the failure of the state Labor government in Queensland and in the Northern Territory, which I've had a bit to do with over the years, when you speak to those who are involved in the building and construction sector in Darwin and Palmerstone, they say they are hurting. They are really hurting—and so are those in Queensland—because of the lack of leadership. The building and construction sector employs 1.2 million people. That's numerous families, millions of people. Their livelihoods—their ability to put food on the kitchen table, to pay their electricity bills and to put petrol in their car—depend on us having a strong building and construction sector. That's why it's so important we come to issues such as the very important one that Senator Patrick has raised. I commend him for raising this issue, but I don't support the bill, because I'm a federalist and don't like the federal government continuing to stick its nose in areas which are the responsibility of the states and territories. The best thing that my fellow Queenslanders can do in about 400 days time is elect the Liberal-National Party into power in Queensland; they will be able to deal with this issue. One of the tragedies in my home state of Queensland is that we've got so much potential—with all due respect to all the other senators in the chamber, apart from Senator Scarr, we are the best state—except, essentially, over the last 30 years— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 009FX Senator Patrick, on a point of order? Senator Patrick 144292 The senator is misleading the chamber. South Australia is clearly the better state! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 009FX That's not a point of order, Senator Patrick. Senator McGRATH 217241 Senator Patrick, I think tomorrow in Melbourne could be a long day if you and I are not careful—for reasons that we privately know! For effectively 25 of the last 30 years—and it's a serious point—Labor have been in power. Look at Queensland. It's such a great state, but it could be so much better. It's been let down by poor political leadership. I think that this is something that an LNP government would be far better at handling at a state level than the federal government would through increasing its power. The National Construction Code has always restricted the use of combustible cladding in high-rise buildings. Industry leaders have agreed that the problem is not the cladding but the way it has been applied. My fear, and the fear of the Liberal-National government, is that an import ban would have significant unintended consequences for Australian businesses that use these panels for legitimate and safe purposes such as signage, wrapping of ATMs, road barriers and interior design. A ban would put the sign-manufacturing and caravan-manufacturing industries in jeopardy, both of which rely on this product and are worth almost half a billion dollars a year to the economy. Bringing in a ban would have unintended consequences for the 14,000 Australians who work in the 770 businesses in those particular spaces that I've just mentioned, and they'll face extreme uncertainty if a ban is put in place. Taken on board with the poor record of state and territory governments—particularly in Queensland and the Northern Territory—and whether the broader building construction sector is in a downturn at the moment, the last thing I would want to do is support something that, despite the best intentions of the mover of this bill, could have severe applications for employment and for businesses in my home state. Inspection would require the deployment of hundreds of Australian Border Force officers. Enforcing a ban would be incredibly costly and is unnecessary. I think the best way to deal with this issue—in terms of the round table and those state ministers who have responsibility for this space—is to make sure that the state ministers are doing their jobs rather than have the federal government pass another piece of legislation, another bit of effective regulation or another bit of control to have a more creeping approach to growing the power here in Canberra at the expense of the states and territories. I should mention, though, that banning aluminium composite panels at the border was rejected, including by Labor state ministers, at the Building Ministers Forum in February. So it is something that I think should have a bottom-up approach rather than the top-down approach. I should stress that, while the government is extremely concerned for the residents and people affected by these building facilities, the cost burden should not be borne by the taxpayer. Indeed, Daniel Andrews—that noted statesman from Victoria!—was very quick out of the gates, as Labor premiers can be, to put his hand out, asking for hundreds of millions of dollars to help rectify the issue in Victoria. This is a problem, this is an issue, but it is a problem that should be dealt with by the states and territories. In terms of any rectification repairs, they should be undertaken by the states and territories and within their budget processes. They should not be putting out their hand and saying to the federal government, as states and territories like to do, 'Well, come on, pay for it.' Sometimes states and territories do act like unwieldy teenagers—always wanting more but failing to do the necessary work around the home. This particular burden should fall back—and rightly so, as per our Constitution and how we are governed as a federation—to the states and territories. My understanding is that the governments have acknowledged that they will take responsibility for their individual paths to remediation and rectification. While they should certainly work together as a roundtable, I think it is appropriate that states and territories, considering the different circumstances within our federation, might take slightly different approaches. That's the good thing about a federation. We can have competitive federalism. One size does not necessarily fit all, and what can work in Melbourne may not necessarily work in Cairns or Mackay. So the Liberal-National coalition government here has strongly encouraged the states and territories to work cooperatively to rectify noncompliant buildings. We believe that cooperation between the states and territories, the sharing of best practice and seeing what one state or territory is doing, and thinking, 'Well, that might be a better way than what we're doing,' will help reduce confusion and help ease the financial pressures of rectification for property owners. This issue does fall squarely within the remit of states and territories. It is not something the federal government, from a legislative or regulatory perspective, should be involved with. We will continue to work together with the states and territories as a united federation to bring together solutions on this quite vexed issue. With that, I conclude my remarks. 16:13 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today I also rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019, and I extend my support to Senator Patrick for the worthy endeavour of reintroducing this bill to the Senate and for his commitment to the safety of consumers in these houses and buildings—and, indeed, of workers. To Senator McGrath, I say: that was a load of rubbish. There's clearly a strong role for the Commonwealth in relation to these building products, and it's a responsibility that the Commonwealth government should live up to. If you won't do the job, then opposition senators are very pleased to join with Senator Patrick in pursuing this issue. I hope this legislation passes this place, but, clearly, we will always want it to pass in the other place, so we really do hope that government senators start to see their responsibilities more clearly in this regard. Back in 2019, the economics committee of the Senate recommended the Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency. During those hearings, stakeholders expressed support for a ban. These people included unions, building industry organisations and the Victorian Building Authority. We know that the government responded to that report and did not support that particular recommendation, which is of great concern. This bill intends to do that job, to make up for that lack of action by government, with a new provision that explicitly bans the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels into Australia. And if the Customs Act is not the Commonwealth's responsibility, then what are we doing here at all? There is clearly a role for the Commonwealth in banning the importation of unsafe products, as it regularly and often does on many fronts. Asbestos is a building material, and we don't rely on the states to enforce a ban on asbestos; we ban its importation ourselves. Indeed, we have to work quite hard to keep asbestos out of our building products. Customs has a role in inspecting building materials, to audit them to make sure there is no asbestos in what comes in. But we know that asbestos frequently ends up in Australian building products and that it's picked up not only by Customs but also by state authorities when, rightly, they do their job in inspections. So the enforcement of these issues is not just a state responsibility; it's clearly also a Commonwealth responsibility. It is the responsibility of all senators in this place to ensure that we legislate in the interests of public safety. It's very disappointing that a spokesman for Minister Andrews told Guardian Australia: … a ban on aluminium composite cladding was rejected at the building ministers' forum in February because states agreed "that banning a legitimate product at the border is neither effective nor practical". This is disappointing, because not only was Minister Andrews obfuscating her responsibilities and deflecting them to the states but, strangely enough, the minister's comments are actually a direct contradiction of the communique from that very meeting. According to the communique: Ministers agreed in principle to a national ban … Those two statements are chalk and cheese. Minister Andrews is clutching at straws, trying to find statements to justify her position. She shouldn't be making stuff up, essentially, to justify her position in public debate, but that's what she has done. It is indeed the responsibility of government, both state and Commonwealth, to ensure the safety of Australians. This government and this minister must ensure the safety of Australians now and accept that the Commonwealth can and should make a difference here in the interests of safety. Customs is under the control of, and under the responsibility of, the Commonwealth government. If the government would like to push those responsibilities back onto the states then we might as well not be here at all as a federation—the federation the government so strongly supports. In 2018, when we debated this bill as it was originally introduced in 2017, Senators Hume and Duniam rejected the import ban. We must police these products that have the potential to cause harm or injury, or to place people in catastrophic danger. These cheap and underregulated products are placing a strain on our manufacturers. Manufacturing is my shadow portfolio, and manufacturers have told me very clearly that they can't compete with the influx of cheaper products because they won't stoop to manufacturing products that they know are unsafe and that don't meet our standards. We're seeing builders bidding for commissions who are being undercut by builders using lower quality and unsafe products. It happens all the time. We could give a real boost to jobs in Australia by supporting this legislation. It's not a matter of saying that this is just an extra cost to the Australian public. We can't actually put a price on this kind of safety. International competition in the importation of products is really important in making sure we're competitive, but the products have to be safe and they have to meet our standards. Currently, the National Construction Code considers polyethylene aluminium composite panels to be safe for use in buildings of up to two storeys. It's important to note at this point that we have exceptional building standards. We don't usually see the kinds of disasters that we see in other parts of the world. However, if I were living in a building that had these panels on it, whether it was a 10-storey building or a two-storey building, I would prefer to know that we were doing everything we could to mitigate the risk of tragedies where people are trapped in their houses and can't be saved. There are thousands of cases around the country where the National Construction Code, in relation to polyethylene aluminium composite panels, has not been adhered to in the proper manner, and we know we have to intervene to ensure public safety. It is going to mean the retrofitting of buildings all over the country. The Victorian Cladding Taskforce has conducted 2,200 inspections. They found inadequate compliance and enforcement, competitive commercial pressures which incentivised the taking of shortcuts, and the substitution of noncompliant products between the approval phase and the construction phase. I want to highlight to the chamber today that these issues of compliance arise with not just cladding but also fire safety. A few weeks ago, in Victoria, I met with a manufacturing company who manufacture lighting safety systems for apartment buildings. They decried the fact that they'd come across cases of, frankly, inspectors taking shortcuts and signing things off because they had a convenient relationship with the builder, who was paying them to come and do the inspection. Their bread was buttered on the side of being asked to come and do the inspection. We have to find better ways of paying for inspections so that there is not a cosy deal between the inspector and the construction company. It's undermining public safety in our nation, including in relation to a whole range of safety standards in our buildings, not just for cladding but also for fire safety lighting. You also find, for example, instances where the noise barriers between apartments—the insulation—have not been built to the specified standard, which affects people's quality of life. That is simply not on in Australia, where people, when they pay good money for the dwellings they buy, expect to get what they paid for and what is in the Australian building standards. As with the many good things the Victorian government have done, in this case they've created a $600 million fund to rectify the issues in 500 buildings identified by the audit. The fund is partly funded by a contribution from developers, but I'm disappointed that the federal government has not made a contribution. Again I say to the government: we must intervene to ensure the safety of the public. I know the government went to the election with no plan for jobs and no plan for the economy, but I do hope that you have a plan for public safety. We went to the election with a policy to ban the import of polyethylene aluminium composite panels, and in our view this is the responsible thing to do. Nobody in this place wants to see the devastation of London's Grenfell Tower disaster repeated anywhere here in our nation. Sixty-two people lost their lives. Frankly, I wish I could say to this chamber that we haven't come close—that we were better than that—but the Melbourne apartment complex on Spencer Street that caught fire early this year caught the attention of Australians, who may well have already been rightly concerned about the use of these products in our buildings. It should serve as a strong warning to the government of just how important it is that they take the responsibility that they have for building safety and the safety of the public seriously. 16:25 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene aluminium composite panels, which are a type of flammable cladding. I support the comments by Senator Patrick and Senator Pratt with regards to banning this type of cladding. As we've heard, the Senate Economics References Committee conducted a detailed inquiry into non-conforming building products in 2016, and the report made a number of very strong recommendations. In 2017, the committee called on the Australian government to implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency, yet the government did nothing, and it has been close to two years now. The flammable cladding problem has the potential to cause tremendous harm and loss of life. We know that that is exactly what happened in the Grenfell Tower disaster in London in 2017, where flammable cladding helped spread the devastating fires. The tragedy made news all over the world, of course, and it had profound and devastating impacts on the lives of so many people. But three years before that, in 2014, the Lacrosse building in Melbourne went up in flames. This was also a residential building with people living in it at that time. The fire started with someone smoking a cigarette on their balcony. That is how flammable the cladding in question is. The fires in the Lacrosse building, Grenfell Tower and other high-rise buildings in Australia and internationally which have been linked to flammable external cladding highlight a wide range of issues. The Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade concluded in their investigation of the Lacrosse fire that the rapid vertical spread of the fire was directly associated with the external cladding. Their report said: Had the external wall cladding been of a non-combustible type, the likelihood of fire spread beyond the level of ignition would have been greatly reduced. Mr Adam Dalrymple, the fire safety director of Melbourne's Metropolitan Fire Brigade, told the Senate inquiry when providing evidence about the Lacrosse fire that the flammable cladding allowed the fire to travel the full extent of the building—23 levels in 11 minutes. The states of New South Wales and Queensland have both called on the federal government to institute a ban on the import of these dangerous flammable cladding materials, but nothing has eventuated. In my home state of New South Wales, my Greens colleague in the upper house of NSW parliament David Shoebridge has been working to expose the lack of action on this issue. They recently found out, through secret documents obtained by the Greens in New South Wales, that hundreds of buildings in the city of Sydney are at risk from flammable cladding. The list includes prominent high-rise buildings, residential apartments, a childcare centre and student housing. This is a serious issue of public safety, and it has been described as a ticking time bomb. This is really a combustible cladding crisis. We know that there is a problem with the Building Code of Australia and its compliance, and, as a civil engineer, I know that quite well. A Four Corners investigation revealed that some international manufacturers and their Australian suppliers were aware of the risks associated with using PE cladding on high-rise buildings, but they continued to import it because Australia's lax and ambiguous building standards allowed them to. Other countries have instituted a ban on the import of flammable cladding. Of course, state and federal governments need to take responsibility, and, more importantly, they need to take action to fix this. Australia can, and should, do this. The risk of not taking action is too grave. The Greens support this bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 009FX The Senate will now adjourn so that senators can attend the presentation of the address-in-reply at Government House. Senate adjourned at 16 : 29