Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we will proceed to business.

I was thinking that the minister might stand to answer the question that I asked when we finished up yesterday, which was about consultations in relation to the location of the RIC in Orange.

The decision about the location of the Regional Investment Corporation was a decision made by government.

You are saying that there were no consultations outside government?

Without going through the answer that I gave to a previous question, the decision about the specifics of the office accommodation are obviously a matter for the RIC board; the decision to locate the RIC in Orange was a decision of government. The decision of government was based on a number of criteria, which I talked about in the answer to a question yesterday: the importance of Orange as an agricultural hub which is well serviced by transport links, particularly from Canberra and Sydney; the opportunities for growth in that area; and the fact that it also meets the existing strong commitment by this government to establish hubs in rural and regional areas of Australia.

In addition to that, obviously we had discussions with other operations in Orange to assure ourselves that this was a suitable place for this corporation to go. Departmental officers, I understand, have met with stakeholders in Orange to discuss the establishment of the RIC in that city, that regional location. The meetings were held with a number of organisations, including the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority, the Regional Development Australia Central West division, Paraway Pastoral Company, the Rural Financial Counselling Service New South Wales Central Region, Orange City Council, Orange Business Chamber and the New South Wales Farmers Orange branch.

Yesterday, Minister, you stated that you were not aware of any discussions the minister or his department is having about outsourcing functions of the RIC. At the public hearing of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation in Bendigo on 9 October 2017, Ms Gartmann, the managing director and CEO of the Bendigo Rural Bank, gave evidence in response to the following questions:

… can you let us know if there's been any consultation with rural finance about the Regional Investment Corporation? Has anyone reached out to you about what's worked and what hasn't worked? Going forward, are you concerned at all about this federal organisation coming in and taking core business?

Ms Gartmann replied:

There certainly has been a large amount and a continuing number of engagements between the Commonwealth agencies and Rural Finance Corporation/Bendigo Bank representatives to discuss what is currently being executed in Victoria in partnership with the Victorian government and to explore areas to strengthen and improve the delivery of the government concessional lending and drought-and-disaster support. That continues to take place. Certainly we're always open to supporting a national approach and collaborating and partnering in whatever model is finalised going forward as of July next year.

As was outlined by Marnie, the balancing act is having some efficiency by coordination from a central, national point as opposed to the current delivery by the states and territories. It is the efficiency gained by having one system as opposed to multiple and balancing that out with an entity that is then further removed from the customer base that it is there to support and serve by having a national entity as opposed to those based in states and across the regions. That balance is yet to be worked out. We've still got a number of months to go before that is supposed to be up and running on 1 July, and we will certainly continue to share the experiences of Rural Finance Corporation with the relevant individuals and agencies to try to create a model that will serve and support all the farmers.

Ms Gartmann went on to say:

The offset accounts. They have traditionally not been available to agricultural businesses. But it is a common practice in residential lending. Legislative changes last year at a federal level were passed and that allowed the farm management deposit offset account to be created, which allows farmers to offset funds held in a farm management deposit account against eligible variable rate term lending, thereby reducing their farm lending costs. Rural Bank is the only bank in market offering that at the moment. But those sorts of legislative changes can demonstrate that it leads to positive business and funding changes for an industry, when done and supported by the private sector.

During a break, Ms Gartmann said that Bendigo Bank/Rural Finance was hoping to be able to tender for RIC work, which would be a front, but Bendigo Bank would continue to do the work. Ms Gartmann said they were in discussions with the department about a tender process.

Now that we know there have been discussions about outsourcing functions of the RIC, can the minister provide detail to the Senate about any other discussions? Is the minister aware that the department is having discussions with agencies that are currently delivering concessional loans? Has any work been undertaken regarding the cost these possible arrangements may incur? Will the RIC be regulated in a similar fashion to other financial banking institutions with regard to receivers, evaluators, lenders and who can provide advice to farm businesses seeking a loan?

Thank you, Senator Brown. I will do my very best to answer the myriad of questions that you asked in that one long question. As I said to you yesterday, I wasn't aware of the consultations, but overnight I took it upon myself to avail myself of information relating to the consultation process that has been undertaken to date, particularly in relation to the areas that you were talking about: outsourcing and rural financial counselling services.

I can advise you that, in the period from 9 July to 10 August this year, the department engaged with a number of representatives of the banking sector and current concessional loan delivery agencies to gain a greater understanding of the market as well as the risks and opportunities in the service delivery area. As part of this process, they also met with a number of agencies that relate to the delivery of these financial assets to the community. They included the ANZ, Rural Bank, Rural Finance, Rabobank, Efic, the Commonwealth Bank, the National Bank, the Australian Bankers' Association, the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority, the Department of State Growth in Tasmania, the Queensland Rural and Industry Development Authority, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions in South Australia and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development in Western Australia.

In relation to the determination about the specifics of the operation, you asked about outsourcing and the opportunity for existing providers to be able to work as service providers and service delivery providers for the Regional Investment Corporation. Whilst some preliminary discussions have occurred around the broader issues of the delivery of the services of the RIC, the government believes it is appropriate that the details of that are a matter for the RIC board, once it is established, and so the detailed answers to the questions that you have asked are not available at this stage. However, I think it is reasonable to say that the RIC board will be given a level of scope to be able to make sure that they are delivering the services to the farming community of Australia in the most efficient and effective way. If they determine that that is using service providers that are currently in the marketplace, and I am sure they will, then that is obviously a matter of which they are able to avail themselves.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you also for coming in and clearing up your response to my question about outsourcing yesterday. In that response, are you saying that any outsourcing is a matter for the RIC board?

Yes, I am.

So it is solely a matter for the board. Can I ask then: why have these discussions, to which Ms Scartland in particular has referred been occurring, and why have they been undertaken by the department?

At the moment, the department is doing a level of preparatory work so that when the board is appointed they have as much information available as possible on which to base their decisions. Of course, the board is entirely entitled to go and seek its own information, or additional information, so I suppose you could just refer to it as somewhat of an incoming brief—so that they have information before them. Obviously, anything that the board may choose to do has to be within the terms of the operating mandate.

Thank you. So—as I asked yesterday—we will possibly see, as Ms Scartland has indicated, that their wish would be that the RIC would be a front and that the Bendigo Bank—if they were successful in any tender—would be running the work of the RIC. She has indicated—just because you look confused, Minister—that they were hoping to be able to tender for RIC work and the RIC would be a front but the Bendigo Bank would continue to do to the work.

No, I'm not confused. First of all, referring to the RIC as a front, I think, is probably a very misleading way to be describing it. Certainly, the opportunity exists for service providers to be able to provide services to the RIC, like any other outsourcing of service delivery that were to occur within a statutory organisation.

However, as I stated before, the decisions about the operation, particularly about outsourcing and the operation and delivery of the assets of the RIC, are a matter for the incoming RIC board. So, apart from being able to say to you, Senator Brown, that the opportunity exists for outsourcing to occur, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be giving direction to the RIC board about what they should or should not be outsourcing. Suffice to say, powers and opportunities exist for the RIC to do that under the terms of its operating mandate. I'm not sure I can give you any more information than that.

You just mentioned the operating mandate. Is that available?

The operating mandate is currently being developed. It will be an instrument that will require tabling post the establishment of the organisation. Obviously, the passage of the bill needs to proceed for the finalisation of the mandate, and at that time it will be tabled.

On the issue of the operating mandate, we have grave concerns with this bill because of the power that it gives the minister without parliamentary oversight and, in fact, without cabinet oversight. You have just stated that the operating mandate is in preparation, but is it correct that that operating mandate isn't a disallowable instrument?

Yes, that is correct.

So, essentially, you are setting up the Regional Investment Corporation with an operating mandate that has got no parliamentary oversight. It is giving a huge amount of power to the minister to determine exactly what the responsibilities of the RIC will be and the parliament won't be able to actually have any input into that—is that correct?

Obviously, the operating mandate is the key vehicle where the government will set out its expectations for the corporation. Whilst the express exemption exists for directions from ministers to corporate Commonwealth entities, the bill provides that the operating mandate is a legislative instrument and must be tabled in the parliament. This gives the parliament a level of oversight. Given the nature and the significance of the potential directions, that is fair and reasonable. It is not proposed for it to be a disallowable instrument. We believe that this is appropriate as it deals with matters over which the executive should retain control. As I said to Senator Brown yesterday when we were discussing the structure of this proposed organisation, the set-up of the RIC is almost a direct replica of the way the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was set up and currently operates in this space. Quite clearly, the mandate of the CEFC is required to be tabled in the parliament, but it is not a disallowable instrument.

I'm not sure, Minister, whether you actually did answer my question about whether the RIC will be regulated in a similar fashion as other financial banking institutes with regard to receivers, evaluators and lenders, and who can provide advice to farm businesses seeking a loan.

First of all, the RIC is not a bank. The RIC doesn't take deposits, so the regulation of the RIC will be appropriate for its structure.

Can I ask the minister to give us some more information as to what she believes is appropriate?

We've been asked to pass this legislation—legislation that Labor, the opposition, believes does not have sufficient transparency or parliamentary oversight. So we're here in this committee stage to try to get some answers to allow some of that transparency, not only for the senators and the parliament but for those in the community who are very interested in this piece of legislation. So far we haven't really been able to get any answers to be able to alleviate any concerns that the opposition may have. So I ask the minister whether she can elaborate on her answer.

Thank you, Senator Brown. I did go to this point to some degree yesterday when I was explaining that this entity is required to comply. With its governance and regulation arrangements in relation to the PGPA, it is required to meet those regulations. But, in relation to its lending capacity and the regulations around lending, because we're lending to the states, we obviously have to meet all the regulations that would be expected of loans, particularly things like debt mediation et cetera. They would have to comply with the regulations of the respective states in which the loans are occurring, as well. There is a series of statutory requirements and regulations that exist as they would exist with any other statutory organisation of a similar type. But, equally, the actions in terms of loans for drought and debt financing would be subject to the regulations as they exist in the states.

Minister, you stated that, with the operating mandate, you feel it is appropriate that it has executive oversight. Can you confirm whether it is compulsory for the operating mandate to be considered by cabinet or whether it is, potentially, just the minister who has complete say over what is in the operating mandate?

The RIC has two ministers. It has the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Minister for Finance. So, obviously, both ministers would be required to sign off on the operating mandate. As to whether the matter goes to cabinet, it is a decision of government.

So it is not required to go to cabinet? Essentially, it just needs to be signed off by those two ministers. So it is concentrating the powers as to what is in the operating mandate in the hands of those two ministers?

Whilst the internal operations of government and the decisions of government aren't necessarily something to be discussed here, there is no legislative requirement for it to be signed off by cabinet—no.

You have indicated that the RIC will have to operate in accordance with state law in terms of their operations.

State regulations.

Do the states have to sign off on the operating mandate?

No, Senator Brown, they don't.

In terms of other things that the minister has the power to determine, can I just clarify that it is also going to be up to the minister, and not any further than that, in terms of being able to change the classes of loans that the RIC would be issuing?

Correct in the sense that the ministers—not the minister; the ministers—are responsible for the directions in relation to that particular decision that you were referring to.

So you could actually have the RIC decide on a completely new class of loan and that would be purely on the ability of the ministers to decide that that was the case, without cabinet oversight or even parliamentary oversight?

We're probably getting to a level of detail regarding the operation of cabinet. Obviously ministers have to operate within the conditions that are placed on them by the cabinet. However, in relation to the rolling out of a new type of loan or a new type of facility, obviously the states would have a say, because we can't roll out a facility in their state without their consent.

There are a number of checks and balances that occur through this process. Whilst you make it sound like the minister just makes a decision, there is a series of processes that are already in place around the governance, operation and accountability of the organisation through which this is being undertaken—the processes that currently exist in relation to the operation of ministers, their requirements and obligations under the cabinet process and through the relationship that the federal government has with state governments through existing arrangements and through the requirement of the government to comply with the regulations and requirements of the states in which these activities are occurring.

Minister, I raised in my speech in the second reading debate concerns raised by the Productivity Commission about the constitutionality of the government directly lending money to small enterprises like farmers. Have you had constitutional advice about the status of those concerns? If so, what was the result of that advice?

Senator Bernardi, I am advised that advice was taken in relation to the constitutionality and the authority of loans; however, that advice is not available.

So, in effect, Minister, we just take your word for it or the government's word for it. Is the government prepared to make that advice available, given that it is a significant doubt that has been raised, not just by me but also by a quasi-government body?

Senator Bernardi, as you would be aware, it is not usual practice for the government to release its legal advice. So, at this stage, the only answer I can give is that I am not aware that we are intending to release that advice.

Minister, going back to my previous question about the new classes of loans that you said that the states would have to be involved in, can you clarify the process of that state involvement and what that consultation process would be, please?

Currently we are required to work with the states. Under current arrangements, for any new class of loan that is required to be rolled out, a formal process of consultation with the states is required to occur. One of the underlying reasons for the establishment of this particular organisation and the purposing of it to roll out these loans and any new loans is so that we can have a more streamlined, effective and efficient way of getting the loans. Into the future, it would be through discussions between the ministers and the board, because the ministers are required to consult with the RIC board before any direction is given on, in this instance, a new class of loan. However, in the future, once that direction has been given, following that consultation with the board, the capacity to roll out those loans will not require a formal mechanism. However, obviously, we will continue to consult with the states about the delivery of any assistance to their jurisdictions.

Just clarifying: with the consultation with the states, you're saying that there's a formal process and then there's consultation with the board, but, after that, the ministers have the final power to determine that a new class of loan would be rolled out? Essentially, the power to make that determination rests entirely with the ministers?

I'm not quite sure what the difference in your question is, but my advice is that there is no formal mechanism that requires us to consult with the states. However, I would say that I presided over the last ag minister's ministerial council and I've been at all ag minister ministerial councils since this particular organisation has been on the table as a proposed method by which to roll out future loans to the states. It has the overwhelming support of the states in its current proposed structure, so the states are quite happy with the way this is progressing. I'm not quite sure what you're actually asking outside of that.

I'm clarifying. There is no formal mechanism of consultation with the states, so, essentially, we have to trust the government that it's going to be doing it appropriately. There is the requirement, however, of the minister to consult with the board, but I just want to clarify that, at the end of the day, the power to decide that a new class of loan or a particular type of loan is going to be rolled out in a particular area rests solely with the ministers.

Yes, it rests solely with the ministers, subject to the requirements of the ministers to consult with the board prior to giving the direction in relation to, in this instance, the issuing of a new class of loan.

Yes, and, again, that decision does not have any parliamentary oversight; it rests solely with the ministers. I've clarified that. Does the same process occur for water infrastructure loans and farm business loans?

Just to let you know, the process through which the water infrastructure loans are administered is a different process. As you might be aware, the process that currently exists, which would continue, requires the state governments to be the ones that actually put forward the proposals in the first place. So it's a completely different process. Obviously, once we've received the applications from the states and they go through a process of evaluation in exactly the same way as they currently go through a process of arm's-length, independent evaluation, the recommendation would go back to the RIC in terms of the funding. At that point, obviously, the RIC board would make the determination in relation to the allocation or otherwise of funding to a particular project. The projects start with the states, so the RIC does not get to preside over the decision-making of the project unless it's already come from the state government.

Just to clarify: that's for the water infrastructure loans. So the intention is that those water infrastructure loans will still come from the states, they'll go through the process, they'll go to the board and then the ministers have their final say. What's the process, however, for the farm business loans?

In relation to the farm business loans, I am advised that they will be administered by the RIC under the conditions that are set out in the operating mandate.

If there was to be an entirely new class of farm business loans, the ministers would have the discretion to determine that there was an entirely new class of farm business loans and then the RIC would be able to roll out those loans?

In effect, yes.

So, if there was a particular industry in a particular marginal seat that the ministers decided that they wanted to particularly support with a new class of farm business loans, it would be entirely at the power of the ministers to do that. There would not necessarily be cabinet oversight, let alone parliamentary oversight.

The committee is considering the Regional Investment Corporation Bill.

Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr Temporary Chair Bernardi. Information on directions issued by ministers is required to be contained in the annual report, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny obviously applies to these or any new ones, with estimates being the obvious vehicle through which the Senate has the opportunity to scrutinise any decisions of this nature.

I want to go back to the water infrastructure loans. I understand from what you've advised that the responsible ministers can direct the RIC to enter into agreements with the states. Is that correct?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Have you concluded, Senator Brown?

Yes.

As I was explaining to Senator Rice, the initial application for assistance in relation to the water infrastructure fund must come from the states. It comes from the states, and the minister provides direction to the RIC in relation to the—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister?

Correct, and then the direction from the minister to the board, but bearing in mind it came from the state in the first place.

So exactly what Senator Rice has been saying is that this could create a situation, a real and serious situation, with the risk of political spending without the rigorous oversight or analysis. I understand you say they'll be tabled, but nothing that's going to be tabled, as I understand it, under this bill is disallowable?

The usual government processes are required and will be enforceable on the operation of this instrumentality in the same way as they would be enforceable on any other instrumentality, particularly in relation to the water infrastructure loans. The role of the RIC is to, obviously, assess and provide the expert advice to the responsible ministers on the projects that are being considered. The final decision on the water infrastructure loans is ultimately made by the government and then, on direction from the ministers, the corporation will enter into the administrative approvals process that is required to enter into the agreements for the loans with the states and territories.

I just want to make sure that I understood you correctly. It will be a matter for the government: the government will ultimately be making the decision whether to grant a loan rather than the RIC?

Yes, in the sense that, ultimately, the final decision rests there, but there is a process that is defined that has to occur prior to that decision being made. Obviously that requires, first of all, that the project has come forward with the authority, consent and request of the state or territory in which the piece of infrastructure is to be constructed. The corporation then has to go through a rigorous process of assessment and make that recommendation. That process is obviously transparent, in the sense that we know what the process is. Then, after recommendation, the ministers have the final decision in relation to those loans. It's also worth noting, Senator Brown, that that is the current process. There will be a greater level of transparency and an arms-length operation in assessment of these loans under the new facility than there currently is.

Minister, in terms of the advice that the minister receives, is there anything in this bill, or anything attached to this bill, that requires the minister to actually take that advice? From past performance, Mr Joyce doesn't seem too partial to be taking advice that departs from his view of the world.

Senator Brown, as I said, there is no greater level of capacity to be able to make decisions without due process under this organisation than there is under any other organisation. There is an established process under which these projects have to be assessed. I hark back to my point that the minister can only make a determination on a project that has been put forward by a state or territory government. So, within the operating mandate of the corporation and within the advice, there are a whole heap of things that the minister is required to do before making a determination in relation to a project. But you are quite right: this is a matter for government and cabinet, and the government has the ultimate power in this to make a determination in relation to a project that has been recommended.

Minister, you state that the government has the power, but, again, it is the two ministers who have the power. It doesn't even have to go through the rest of cabinet. It doesn't have parliamentary oversight. You also said that it's set out in the operating mandate, but the operating mandate can be changed by the two ministers without parliamentary oversight. These are our concerns about the governance of this project and resting far too much power in those ministers.

Senator Rice, obviously, unfortunately, I can't ask you a question, but I wonder why we seem to think that the governance arrangements, the scrutiny, the oversight, the notification processes and everything that sits around the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are at an appropriate level to enable that operation to work—and consider the kind of money that's associated with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—yet for some reason you have a concern that exactly the same operational requirements for this particular organisation are somewhat lacking. Obviously, as I said, I can't ask you a question, but I draw to the attention of the house that they are exactly the same operating requirements. The operating mandate of the CEFC is not a disallowable instrument. I just draw the parliament's attention to that.

For the benefit of the chamber, I advise the minister that she is fully welcome to ask a question of another senator. She is entitled to ask a question of another senator in this debate. It is not a one-way flow of traffic.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Temporary Chair. Are there any projects currently in the pipeline that may come through the RIC in terms of the discussions that have been had with states and territories? Are there any projects that are at the early stages of being put forward?

In relation to the water infrastructure facility, obviously, the projects that were approved under the last round are a matter of public knowledge, so you'd be well aware of those. In relation to the loan facilities and products, they are currently in discussion with the states. But, obviously, because the corporation has not yet been established, there have been no decisions in relation to that. I do know, though, from discussions with the states in relation to the transition between the existing situation and the new operation of the RIC, should it be passed, that there are already very detailed discussions in place about how you can seamlessly transition across so that the farmer—or anybody who is in need of the products currently available under the existing situation would be made available under the RIC—aren't inconvenienced in any way.

I would like to, again, clarify the questions around the operating mandate. You said that the states and territories do not have to sign off on an operating mandate, but are they being consulted? Also, which other stakeholders are being consulted in terms of the operating mandate?

The states are being widely consulted on the products that will be made available as opposed to specifically being consulted on the operating mandate. But, obviously, part of that consultation and the feedback they'll get from that will form part of the basis of the decision the government makes on the operating mandate.

My question actually went to other stakeholders as well. I'm assuming from your answer that you are stating that the states and territories are being consulted on the operating mandate, because you just talked about products. Could you clarify that?

Maybe I wasn't clear. The government is consulting a wide range of stakeholders, including state governments, on the products as opposed to specifically consulting them on the operating mandate. The answer to the question specifically is that we are not explicitly consulting on the operating mandate; we are explicitly consulting about the products that will be offered.

We got there. That wasn't too hard! So you are not consulting with the states and territories, and, I assume, from your response that means that you are actually not consulting with stakeholders.

Senator Ruston, is there a point of order?

There is a point of order in terms of the accuracy of the response.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's, indeed, a debating point. You can resume your seat. I'm sure you can respond. Senator Brown, you have the call.

I want to clarify whether you're specifically consulting with other stakeholders on the operating mandate. There has been a lot of uncertainty about what will or won't be included in the operating mandate and there has been some disappointment, thus far, as to whether there will be consultation. We are finding it very difficult to even get an answer to that very simple question.

First of all, a point of clarification on the opening remarks at the start of that question by Senator Brown. You said that we were not consulting. I quite clearly said that we were consulting. I said we weren't consulting specifically on the operating mandate—just to be very clear about that. The bill sets out what can be included in the operating mandate: the objectives to pursue in administering farm loans and the national water infrastructure facility; the government's expectations in relation to the strategies and policies to be followed by the corporation; the eligibility criteria for those loans; and the management of funding in other matters. These will all be outlined in the operating mandate. As I said, it is currently in the process of development. It will not be finalised until after the passage of the bill. However, after the passage of the bill, it will be tabled in the parliament, but not as a disallowable instrument.

Minister, in terms of the ability for the ministers to have discretion: in this case you were wanting to ask me a question about why we are happy with the CEFC. My understanding is that the CEFC, in fact, has much stricter requirements on the types of investment included in the legislation for the CEFC. However, here we have the ability for the RIC to undertake entirely new classes of loans without parliamentary oversight. So I'd ask the question: why is it seen to be appropriate for those entirely new classes of loans to be able to be at the discretion of ministers in this instance, whereas under the CEFC legislation it was actually included? There were quite strict parameters on what types of investment it could make, and these were included in the CEFC legislation.

Whilst there is a discretion for new product, these are still farm business loans, and the definition of 'farm business loan' is contained in the legislation. There is already a level of definition in the legislation, so I'm not quite sure why you would be suggesting that there isn't.

The definition of 'farm business loan' is extremely broad, and, going back to my previous point, the ministers, without parliamentary oversight—without even cabinet oversight—could decide to create a whole new type of farm business loan that is particularly suited to a particular farming type in an area of a marginal seat that happens to be beneficial for those ministers or for that particular party.

Just to be very clear, a 'farm business loan' means:

… a loan made, or proposed to be made, to a farm business:

(a) engaged solely or mainly in producing commodities for constitutional trade or commerce; or

(b) for the purpose of encouraging or promoting constitutional trade or commerce; …

So it's quite clear that a farm business loan requires the entity for which the loan is being made available to be engaged solely or mainly in the production of commodities for constitutional trade or commerce. That's quite clearly the definition there. But, in regard to your point, the minister is still required to take the expert advice of the corporation in relation to the development of any new products. So there is a level of expert advice that is necessarily provided to the ministers prior to their making any decision.

Under section 12, the minister must seek the board's advice. That's what the legislation says. It doesn't say that the minister, for other reasons, could decide that he or she is going to override or modify or make a determination that isn't completely consistent with the board's advice. It is within the ability of the ministers to make that decision.

Yes, Senator Rice, that's correct.

The bill talks about a class of loans, but the term 'class' is actually not defined in the bill. Can you define that for the chamber?

Senator Brown, the level of detail that you're suggesting needs to be included in the bill is probably something that would not normally be included. I'm talking about a class of licence of a loan. The classification of the loan and the eligibility to receive a loan is in the legislation. We're currently out consulting particularly and specifically about the eligibility criteria for those loans. That is one area of consultation that is a very high priority at the moment. We are consulting with not only the farming industry but also the banking sector and the states and territories to make sure that the eligibility criteria of the loan are fit for purpose and will result in the efficient and effective delivery of assistance to our farming community. I'm just wondering why you would think that would need to be included in the bill.

There is concern about this particular area because, as you have said, the minister cannot make directives with regard to particular loans under the farm loan program but they can make directions with regard to class of such loans. I don't think that it's unreasonable that you here are able to define for us what 'class' means in this bill. Essentially, with the minister being able to make directives with regard to particular loans, he's absolutely got the power to issue directives that concern arbitrarily tightening defined classes of loan. I don't think it's unreasonable for the chamber to be advised by government what 'class' means in this bill.

Senator Brown, I suppose the class of loan is the normal definition of what a 'class' would mean. It's a type of loan.

I'm not sure that was entirely helpful, because we could see all types of loans being created by the minister in terms of his directions—construction loans? I think it's absolutely important that the government is able to define what it means and the parameters around what the term 'class' means in this bill.

Obviously, as we've stated before, the loans must be farm business loans. The legislation requires us to meet the criteria of what a farm business loan is before eligibility kicks in. But, just as an example of a class of loan, the dairy recovery loan package would be considered a class of loan. There is debt recovery. That's what a class of loan would be, as defined, under this.

Minister, whilst I was in the chair I had a couple of additional questions to think about with respect to the constitutionality question which I asked you earlier. Are you able to advise who provided the constitutional advice to the government with respect to permissibility or to counter the concerns of the Productivity Commission? And on what date was that advice provided?

Senator Bernardi, I don't have the answer to your question. I'm not sure if one takes it on notice in a committee stage, but I will endeavour to find the answer in the next little while as to whether that information is available. And, if it is available, obviously, I will make it available to the chamber.

I thank the minister for her frankness. I hope you are able to obtain the information, given it is a government body—the Productivity Commission—that has raised concerns about the constitutionality of the approach that the government has taken with this bill. There is really no excuse for not having that information available, given you are responding to concerns that were raised by an organisation that is funded—you may want to turn to your left, Minister; I think someone is trying to assist. Further to that, whilst you gave an assurance that you had received constitutional advice, you were unprepared or unwilling to table that advice in accordance with regular government practice. Can you assure this chamber that the advice received on the date you don't know by the organisation that you don't know was, in fact, validating the approach that the government has taken in light of the Productivity Commission's concerns?

I have been advised the Australian Government Solicitor was the body who provided the advice in response to the Productivity Commission's issues in relation to the constitutionality of the loans. My understanding is that the particular issue of constitutionality that was raised by the Productivity Commission actually related to the loans program that is currently being administered and not to the new loans and the operation of the RIC.

Yes, indeed, Minister. I am not surprised, because your new approach hadn't been presented when the Productivity Commission was talking about the constitutionality of the government directly funding loans to farms instead of via the states—if I am right, because I think it was some time in 2012 or thereabouts. I just want to make this clear. You have constitutional advice about concerns that you say are not applicable because, when they were raised, they were not relevant to this current thing. It is like torture; a spaghetti jumble—what happened and how and when it came about. I just want to make sure that the government is 100 per cent confident that what they are doing is compliant with the Constitution, even though I am getting mixed messages with respect to this.

Perhaps as a point of clarification and so I can be absolutely clear that we are speaking of the same words: my understanding is that the comments from the Productivity Commission in relation to the constitutionality of the loans were related to the existing method by which loans are administered by the federal government. You were asking a question about the advice received by government in relation to the constitutionality of the current operation of the loans program. I responded by saying we had received advice from the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to that. In relation to the constitutionality, you asked me a question about whether we had advice about the constitutionality of the proposed new methods by which loans are administered should the RIC be passed.

If it were anyone else, I would suggest you were being tricky. I thought I was clear. I appreciate your willingness to assist here. I raised concerns, in my speech in the second reading debate, about the direct funding of loans to farmers by government. They were based on the report of the Productivity Commission in looking at alternative ways to deal with the issue. Now, yes, they might not be relevant directly to this bill, but this bill does, in effect, provide the Commonwealth with the facility to provide loans directly to farmers. I am concerned—I don't want to conflate the two issues—but it is about the constitutionality of the approach the government is taking. I am not trying to be tricky. I don't think you are trying to be tricky, but I just want a clear answer. You've had advice in respect of this bill from the Government Solicitor, which is what you mentioned before. I would like to know when advice was received that it is entirely within the constitutional purview of the government to proceed with this approach.

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I can assure you I'm not being tricky. The loan scheme was designed taking into account a large range of factors, including the Commonwealth's constitutional powers to do this. The legal advice that was taken throughout the process was obviously an iterative approach to receiving advice; it wasn't just one piece of advice received at one point in time. So yes, the government has received legal advice. It received legal advice throughout the whole process in relation to the loan scheme that is being currently designed and the decisions in relation to how that is going to work included the constitutional power for the Commonwealth to be able to undertake and deliver the loans under the proposed method.

Minister, going back to the farm loans and the classes of loans, I am just wanting more clarification about what potentially could constitute a class of loans. Do you envisage that a class of loans could be restricted geographically, for example, to a state? Could it be a class of loans to a particular agricultural industry in a particular state?

Possibly, Senator. The underlying reason for this particular package is the ability for governments to be much more responsive to the needs of our farming community. As you would be aware, having a keen interest in the farm sector, farming takes many and varied forms. In that case, we can have localised distress occur because a particular area is impacted by a localised or regionalised event or activity. Equally, a single industry can be impacted across the whole country, which means that there is a little bit of the industry through many jurisdictions. A classic example of that more recently has been the situation that occurred with the crisis in the dairy industry; probably no state felt it more keenly than the state which you represent as a senator. So the ability for the classes of loans to be immediately responsive and reactive to situations that we find our farming communities getting themselves into or being impacted by without much notice is important. So the answer to your question is yes. The loan classes are, in effect, designed so that they can be quickly responsive to situations to assist our farmers as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible.

Can I also clarify, Minister, that for these particular classes of loans there isn't a hardship requirement as to what would make a particular agricultural industry eligible to receive these loans?

Senator Rice, obviously, the criteria of the particular loans will determine the eligibility criteria for access to these particular loans. As I said earlier to Senator Brown, there is quite an extensive consultation going on at the moment in terms of developing the criteria both in the operating mandate in the broader terms of eligibility, which is the consultation that is currently being undertaken, and also in relation to any direction that comes from the minister. Obviously, the criteria under which accessibility of the particular loan would be available would be determined. In terms of the operating mandate, it is an instrument to be tabled in the parliament.

But there's nothing in the legislation—which is where we as the parliament have the ability to say this is appropriate or not—that would constrain what could be in those classes of loans. So we could have a class of loan, for example, where suddenly there is money available to the wine industry in South Australia just before a South Australian election, or suddenly there is a class of loans available to the dairy industry in northern Tasmania just before a Tasmanian election or a federal election, or suddenly, just before a New South Wales election, there is a class of loans for plantation forestry in northern New South Wales, and there would be no parliamentary oversight over these types of loans. It is up to the operating mandate, which is not a disallowable instrument. It's up to the ministers to decide in their judgement, and just the ministers, not even going to the cabinet. It's going to be up them, with executive power to decide that there's suddenly government largesse that would be available to a particular industry in a particular state. This is why we have grave concerns about this legislation. It is setting up a slush fund to be able to be used by the government of the day.

Senator Rice, I will have to agree to disagree with the intonation of your response. The eligibility criteria for loans and financial assistance are matters over which the executive arm of government currently has control, and it's the opinion and belief of government that it should retain control. The potential impact on the budget is quite considerable, and obviously the executive of government has a responsibility for budgetary control. Therefore, we absolutely believe that it's appropriate that this remains in the control of executive government.

That doesn't give me any satisfaction at all. We have just found through the High Court case on equal marriage that there is a $295 million line in the budget each year that we understood was for urgent and unforeseen circumstances but that the High Court has now found is basically there as a fund for whatever the government of the day wants to fund. So you have that ability to essentially hand out loans to suit the political purposes of the government without the parliamentary oversight that would be appropriate in such a scheme. We haven't got a problem with having loans schemes. There should be much stricter controls included in the legislation, not leaving so much power in the hands of the ministers.

Senator Rice, can I say right now that there is no parliamentary oversight of the guidelines for loans under the current arrangements. What we're proposing here is a greater level of transparency and notification in relation to those guidelines. Obviously, the agriculture and finance ministers are required to agree to those guidelines.

I also have a point of clarification on a previous question—I am not sure if it came from you or Senator Brown. Existing loans require a hardship element, and the board will be required to comply with that existing requirement.

I want some further clarification. You've indicated that the government is not specifically consulting on the operating mandates with states and territories or stakeholders. Once the operating mandate is developed, will there be consultation at that point?

As I mentioned earlier, the details which inform the development of the operating mandate are currently the subject of consultation. However, the operating mandate, once it is developed, will not be the subject of further consultation.

Minister, can you clarify your previous response to me about the hardship requirements? Can you go through that again and tell me what the requirements are going to be?

Thank you, Senator Rice. The existing loans require a hardship element, and the board will be required to operate under the mandate. My understanding is that that will continue to be required as part of the criteria.

As part of what criteria? As set out in the operating mandate?

Correct.

But the operating mandate is not a disallowable instrument. So what you're saying is that there is the intention in the operating mandate to include that hardship requirement, but we won't have any ability to make sure that that's the case and it could be changed at the minister's discretion.

Senator Rice, at the risk of repeating myself for the 14th time, the current situation, which everyone seems to be quite satisfied with, allows the executive of government to undertake and make these decisions in relation to this particular suite of products that are in the marketplace. These products have a very specific role to play, and that is to assist our farming community when situations of hardship affect them—most often not of their own making.

Currently, we have a suite of products. Definitely, after the consultation and discussions that I have had in my role as the assistant minister, and also through my role as someone who's lived in rural and regional Australia for many years, the ability for responsiveness in these loans is something that's been criticised for some time. We have a situation right now where we are providing this assistance to communities across the whole of rural and regional Australia. We're seeking to do so by a mechanism that is now going to enable it to be more streamlined and more responsive, and which is actually going to provide a better service to those people who are affected.

To have a situation as you're proposing, where we have some sort of extraordinarily high level of parliamentary power to be able to come in and make decisions in relation to stuff—decisions that have in the past always been made by the executive arm of government, for the reasons that I stated previously—is, first of all, an extraordinary precedent to set. But think about the farmers who wish to be able to get access—very often with some level of speed. You're suggesting here that it's appropriate for us to have this extraordinarily increased level of intervention by this very parliament. That is something that is quite unprecedented in the level of intervention that you are proposing by suggesting that every single thing has to come here to somehow get ticked off by you.

It's not a situation where every single thing has to be ticked off by us. It's just making things like the operating mandate a disallowable instrument so that there is parliamentary oversight on the classes of loans. Just like in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act, it will specify in the legislation what the types of loans can be. It is having that high level of parliamentary oversight, as is reflected in the proposed amendments by the Labor Party, which the Greens will be supporting.

Senator Rice, the operating mandate of the CFC is not a disallowable instrument.

I just want to go back to Senator Bernardi's point about the constitutionality and the powers that have been drawn on, because I am concerned about the risks associated with this. I just want to read from the Bills Digest, where it indicates:

Setting aside the reference to the Desertification Convention, the suite of constitutional powers drawn on for the Bill is the same as that which the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources previously advised the ANAO would not provide broad support for a Commonwealth program of direct assistance to farming businesses through the provision of concessional loans.

I would like to know, Minister, whether the government has assessed any risks in terms of the advice that has been provided.

Senator Brown, as I responded to Senator Bernardi, throughout the whole process, obviously we sought legal advice in relation to the risk associated with this proposal. So I can assure you that the government has ensured that risk is mitigated in all the circumstances. Throughout the process, yes, we have had advice to that effect.

My next questions are, again, about the powers of the minister, and in particular the power of the minister to direct the board as to where the corporation is to be located. This level of detail is in the legislation, but the level of detail as to what the money will be able to be directed to is out of the legislation. Why is it considered appropriate to have that level of detail in the legislation where the minister can say to the board, 'This is where your corporation is going to be located,' and yet requirements such as a hardship provision or the fact that you won't be able to target particular regional areas without a hardship provision aren't included in the legislation?

Senator Rice, the reason that the location of the RIC was included in the legislation was to provide a level of immediate certainty to the board so that they could hit the ground running.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (3), (4) and (6) on sheet 8225 together:

(1) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 6 to 9), omit the note, substitute:

Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2) (b) of that Act).

[Ministerial directions]

(3) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:

  (4) Section 42 (Disallowance of legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 applies to a direction made by the responsible Ministers under subsection (1).

Rules

  (5) The rules must prescribe, in relation to loans or financial assistance to be provided by the Corporation, the eligibility criteria for those loans or that assistance.

[Ministerial directions/rules]

(4) Clause 12, page 11 (after line 15), after subclause (3), insert:

  (3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), any terms and conditions to be included in an agreement must be in accordance with the rules.

[ rules]

(6) Clause 12, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:

Ministerial directions—water infrastructure projects

  (6) A direction made by the responsible Ministers under subsection (3) is a notifiable instrument.

  (7) Section 38 (Tabling of legislation instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 applies to the direction as if the direction were a legislative instrument.

  (8) The Minister must cause a copy of the direction to be published on the internet within 30 days after it is issued by the Minister.

Agreements—water infrastructure projects

  (9) The Corporation must give the Agriculture Minister a copy of an agreement entered into under subsection (3).

  (10) The Minister must cause a copy of the agreement to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister.

  (11) The Minister must cause a copy of the agreement to be published on the internet within 30 days after its receipt by the Minister.

Rules

  (12) The rules must prescribe, in relation to agreements to be entered into under subsection (3):

(a) the terms and conditions, or the kinds of terms and conditions, that may be included in an agreement; and

(b) the matters the Corporation must consider in specifying terms and conditions to be included in an agreement.

[Ministerial directions/rules]

These amendments seek to strengthen the current bill. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee report found that the current bill lacked the appropriate high-level guidance as to the types of terms and conditions that states and territories will be required to comply with in order to receive payment of financial assistance for water infrastructure projects. Throughout the committee stage thus far, I haven't received any comfort from the minister's responses to the questions that have been asked. Regarding the water and infrastructure projects, this includes a legislative requirement that any directions made by the responsible ministers under subclause 12(3) and any agreements with the states and territories about these grants of financial assistance are tabled in the parliament within 15 sitting days after being made and published on the internet within 30 days after being made.

The scrutiny committee also expressed concerns about the bill exemption from disallowance and sunsetting. Minister Ruston has claimed that the normal parliamentary oversight and scrutiny will exist with regard to the corporation. However, while the bill provides for the operating mandate to be treated as a legislative instrument and will require it to be tabled, it will not be subject to disallowance and sunsetting.

The minister has sought to reassure the Senate chamber that any directions the corporation receives from the responsible ministers will be published in its annual reports. The government is claiming that this requirement will ensure that there will be appropriate transparency of ministerial directions to the corporation. Non-disallowable instruments do not allow for the proper oversight and parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial directions. Labor's amendments seek to strengthen the proper oversight and parliamentary scrutiny for directions made by the minister.

Minister Ruston also questioned whether Labor had concerns about entities similar to the RIC. This would be a fair question if those entities were indeed established under the exact same legislation that the RIC is to be established under.

We know that there are aspects of this bill that are unique in nature, and this is most likely due to the fact that Minister Joyce is the architect of the bill. It is lacking in detail, and we have seen a number of amendments put forward in an attempt to strengthen the bill. Labor urges all senators to support Labor's amendments to ensure that there is proper parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the corporation.

The government will not be supporting the Labor Party's amendments (1), (3), (4) and (6). The reasons for this have been largely canvassed in the previous discussions prior to the moving of these amendments. In effect, the government believe that the operating mandate should not be a disallowable instrument, as it deals with matters over which the executive arm of government should retain control. We believe that the approach in the bill gives the parliament the right level of oversight of the operating mandate, given the nature and significance of that direction to the entity. Firstly, the bill requires and provides for the mandate to be a legislative instrument, which requires it to be tabled. The approach has been taken despite the express exemption that exists for directions of ministers to corporate Commonwealth entities. We have required that to be included. We believe the government is being open and transparent and, in this instance, going beyond the minimum requirements. As I said before, this approach is not unusual, and I have cited the CEFC as an instrumentality in which the operating mandate is not a disallowable instrument.

In relation to amendment (3)—that the terms and conditions of water agreements be prescribed in rules and be disallowable—we believe it is inappropriate, as these, once again, are matters over which the government should have control. We believe it would also reduce the Commonwealth's flexibility when negotiating with the states and territories and could be confusing for the corporation in terms of compliance. We believe the parliament has the appropriate level of visibility of these grants for financial assistance and for water infrastructure projects, and this will be achieved through the tabling of the operating mandate and the contents thereof, as well as through the reporting requirements for corporate Commonwealth entities under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

The Greens will be supporting these opposition amendments, which attempt to give the required parliamentary oversight that is essential and currently not included in this legislation. This legislation gives far too much power to, and concentrates that power in the hands of, the ministers. The minister talked about using the example of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation legislation. If you read the CEFC legislation, it sets out explicitly—there is clause after clause after clause—the restrictions on what money can be lent and what types of infrastructure are eligible for funding under the CEFC and what is not. That level of detail is completely lacking in this legislation.

So the Labor amendments, if passed, would give that extra level of parliamentary oversight that is necessary. Alternatively, I think you'd have to go back to the drawing board and set out in much greater detail what it's appropriate for these levels of loans to be spent on. The fact that there is nothing regarding hardship requirements included in the legislation and that there is no definition of what a class of farm business loans is means it is open slather for the ministers to be able to make decisions on their own. The powers for them to direct the board are really setting up a very undemocratic and unaccountable institution. These Labor amendments, which we are supportive of, go some way to having a level of parliamentary oversight that is absolutely required.

As I've said previously, we believe that the level of control, governance and oversight that is contained in the proposal that is before us is appropriate for the actions and the operations of the instrumentality. We believe there are roles for executive government, there are roles for this parliament and obviously there are roles that will be delegated to the board of the organisation. I particularly reiterate that this entity is required to have the reporting obligations of the corporation exist under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. These obligations require that a corporate plan be prepared and published on the corporation's website. The corporation must also prepare annual reports to be tabled in parliament by the responsible ministers. The corporation's annual reports must include a statement of performance which sets out the results, measurements and assessment identified in the entity's corporate plan, and the annual reports also need to detail any directions issued by the responsible ministers.

So I would just reiterate that there are a number of existing requirements that are set out by normal government procedure that will apply to this organisation, not the least of which is the PGPA Act. Also, as we've mentioned before, the Senate has appropriate levels of scrutiny in relation to the Senate estimates process, through which you have the capacity to prosecute any of the issues that you are raising.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Brown on sheet 8225, being amendments (1), (3), (4) and (6), be agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 8225:

(2) Clause 11, page 10 (line 21), paragraph 11(2) (c) to be opposed.

This amendment will remove the ministers' influence on directing the corporation about the eligibility criteria for loans and financial assistance. The independence of the corporation is critical when establishing the eligibility criteria for loans or financial assistance. The lack of detail about what loans and financial assistance will be provided by the corporation is concerning when we know that the current concessional loans take into consideration the viability of the farm enterprise. To ensure that the corporation is able to manage its lending criteria, the responsible ministers should not be able to give directions about eligibility criteria for loans or financial assistance.

Labor strongly urges senators to support the amendment to strengthen the independence of the corporation. Once again, I make reference to Minister Ruston, who compared the RIC to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. These two corporations are different in their objectives, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is independent in its own right, as opposed to the RIC, which is beholden to the ministers of the day.

In relation to the proposed amendment (2) from the Labor Party, which would have the eligibility criteria for loans or financial assistance prescribed in rules which are disallowable instruments, the government believes this is an inappropriate mechanism through which to provide for the eligibility criteria for loans. We believe they are matters over which the executive arm of government should retain control as they have the potential to impact on the Commonwealth budget. We, therefore, believe it's appropriate that they are provided for in the bill as directions to the entity rather than as rules. We also believe that it's appropriate that they are not disallowable.

The Greens will be supporting the Labor amendments as we have discussed in the previous debate. It is essential that there be more in the legislation that explicitly outlines what can and can't be lent to and does not leave it to the discretion of the minister, who can then direct the board.

The CHAIR: The question is that paragraph 11(2)(c) stand as printed.

I now move opposition amendment (5):

(5) Clause 12, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit "responsible Ministers may give a written direction to the Corporation about", substitute "rules must provide for".

This amendment removes the minister's being able to direct where the corporation must be located. Instead, the rules must provide for where the corporation is to be located.

Minister Ruston earlier referenced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and made an implication that there is no difference between how that corporation was established and how the RIC is established. Minister Ruston should familiarise herself with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act. It certainly does not have a clause whereby the responsible minister can direct where the corporation is to be located.

To ensure the proper, efficient and effective performance of the corporation, the board should be allowed to make decisions as to where best the corporation will function. Minister Ruston has provided no detailed information about what process was undertaken to determine that Orange is the best location for the corporation and whether any other regional centre was considered before Orange was selected. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders that the location of the RIC has been unilaterally decided without any apparent economic analysis or even a discussion with the agricultural industry stakeholders, and this in turn has highlighted another dimension of the non-commercial nature of the corporation.

The location of the corporation should not be decided by the minister of the day. The location should be decided on the grounds of where it can best do its job, and this decision should be made by the board of the RIC.

Firstly, can I just put on the record that I'm not entirely sure that I ever said that the CEFC was told where it was to be located.

The Australian government, as I have said time and time again, has a very strong commitment to rural and regional Australia. Our decentralisation policy will certainly be supported by the corporation being located in Orange, New South Wales. Orange is an extraordinarily important agricultural hub, and we believe that this is an appropriate place for the RIC to be located. Meetings have been held with a number of entities, which I have previously put on the public record as part of this debate, which were consulted about the operational arrangements of the organisation, so there certainly has been consultation.

In essence, this is absolutely consistent with our current policy. It's in line with the exemptions under the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation that a direction is not a legislative instrument and therefore is not disallowable. This approach also provides certainty to the board about where the corporation will be located and will allow it to have focus on having the corporation fully operational by July 2018.

The Greens will be supporting this amendment from Labor. The fact that the board is being directed to establish its headquarters in Orange underlines the whole rationale behind so much of this legislation. It is giving power without any assessment process, without any objective process. It gives the minister the power to direct the board, quite inappropriately.

Orange may well be the best place for the headquarters of such a corporation, but we don't know. There is no process that's been undertaken to determine that, just like with the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Suddenly Minister Joyce plucked Armidale out of the air and said, 'It's going to be there,' with no justification. We saw in the cost-benefit analysis that was done that in fact there was a negative benefit in establishing the headquarters of the APVMA in Armidale.

Here we've got a similar situation. It is blatant pork-barrelling. That's all it is. Without parliamentary oversight and without any process, we have a situation of putting far too much power in the hands of the executive. This might be the way the government wants to do business, but it is not good governance. It is not good, transparent, accountable, evidence-based legislation and governing. Supporting this amendment, at least, is one tiny thing that would improve this legislation. The fact that the government is opposing this amendment bells the cat. It shows so much of what the purpose of this legislation is based on.

Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with Senator Rice. I ask the minister: are you able to confirm that the electorates and regional centres that were talked about are where the National Party is under extreme political threat by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party?

Senator Bernardi, what I can confirm for you today is that Orange is a thriving regional community. It is the hub of much of the agricultural bureaucratic infrastructure for the New South Wales agriculture department. Having the Regional Investment Corporation located in Orange has certainly received wide support from the community. As I responded to Senator Brown, Orange is a regional community and this government supports the development and growth of our regional economies.

I can confirm for you—just in case you were in any doubt—that it is the heart of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and their supporters, which, of course, is playing into the concerns of the National Party. In this debate in this place, I was reminded very much of an event that happened under a former minister, Ros Kelly, with regard to the awarding of grants, where they were mapped out, effectively, on a whiteboard. Are you able to confirm that a whiteboard and a similar process will be used to determine where these grants should be given in the event of propping up marginal seats?

Senator Bernardi, at the risk of suggesting you're being tricky, I can assure you that all the appropriate processes that are afforded to a government instrumentality will apply to the Regional Investment Corporation and that the appropriate levels of governance, accountability, transparency and notification will occur in line with such acts as the PGPA Act and all of the requirements that will be issued as part of the operating mandate of this organisation.

Thank you, Minister. I'm heartened by your reassurance that all the appropriate probity and accountability of government will be brought to bear in many of these grants. But what you've said flies in stark contrast to what Senator Rice has been saying—which has resonated with me, quite frankly—which is that there is no real, formal approval process. The board can make some suggestions which the minister can ignore and establish new classes of grants and dispense them wherever they like. For example, they could, in the interests of equality, not only give them to Armidale and Orange but they might slot it into Renmark for no particular reason—maybe to support the good work of a senator down there, or something like that. It doesn't seem as if there is any rationale or criteria attached to where these grants can go apart from the whims of the minister at the time.

Now, we may have confidence in the minister—some may not, currently—but no-one knows who is going to be the minister next. To place such discretion in the hands of any one individual without the checks and balances that accrue from the parliament—and I do note that the government has voted against the disallowance of these grants, these potential boondoggles, these potential whiteboard/sports rorts, to coin a term; these could be ag rorts in a future life. These are normal checks and balances that accompany the responsibilities and roles of government.

Further, how does something like this get through the cabinet without these checks and balances? I know you are not in cabinet, Minister. I think you've been given a hospital pass here in some respects, and I'm sorry for that, but, in effect, this doesn't seem even to have gone through the normal cursory examinations and consultation attached to cabinet probity. It just seems as if it's been cooked up on the whim of one or two individuals in order to give them some discretion to prop up political threats, and that really concerns me. I don't think it's the right approach. It overturns the principles of federation. As I said, it overturns some of the concerns raised on the constitutionality by the Productivity Commission. It overturns the expectation of appropriate consultation and examination by the parliament and the ability to say, 'This is absolutely wrong.' It has all the hallmarks of a scheme that is going to be rorted. It may be well intended, but these are serious concerns. Minister, whilst you have assured us of these probities, I still haven't heard an effective response to Senator Rice's concerns that, in effect, this is just a bag of money that is at ministerial discretion to throw out wherever they like.

There are a number of points that I'll try and clarify from the comments that you have just made. First of all, to put this on the record: Orange has a series of quite unique characteristics that make it a particularly ideal location in terms of creating a critical mass of infrastructure in relation to agriculture in a regional community. I'm assuming you are not suggesting for a minute that we shouldn't be decentralising and giving support to the regional communities around Australia, including the one in which I live. But, at the moment, Paraway Pastoral, the New South Wales RIA, the New South Wales DPI and NAB Business Banking all have their headquarters in Orange. The creation of a regional centre of excellence in Orange is something that the government believes is a very worthy and worthwhile application of its activities.

There were a number of reasons why Orange was identified as being an entirely suitable location for the RIC to go to. It's also worth pointing out that all the way through here we have interspersed the word 'loans' with the word 'grants'. I'd like to put on the record and make sure it is very clear that we are referring to loans and not grants.

I would just like to follow on from Senator Bernardi's contribution because the minister in her response made it no clearer to the chamber what the process was that was undertaken to determine Orange as the location for the RIC. There was no indication of whether there were any other locations—and there are many locations around Australia that have vibrant farming communities. Unless the minister can tell us now what the process was and what, if any, other locations were considered, the only thing that we in this chamber can safely assume is that this is about pork-barrelling by Mr Joyce and a political fix for the National Party. That is the only conclusion that we can come to, because the minister has failed to tell this chamber exactly what the process was.

We've seen this all before under Mr Joyce. We saw it with the siting of the APVMA in Armidale, and that has not gone well. We've seen expert people leave that organisation. We have seen the backlog of work that hasn't been able to be undertaken because of the concern and uncertainty that Mr Joyce has caused. So it is vital in this committee stage that the minister tells this chamber quite clearly what process was undertaken to select Orange as the location for the commission.

There are two things here. One is that I think we need to be very careful that you don't make a quantum leap of faith to suggest that the decision of the government to pursue its decentralisation targets and policy to move a number of agencies out of capital cities and into regional communities, where they're closer to the people that they represent, has been the cause of what has been a long-term systemic underperformance of the APVMA. I think we just need to be very careful that you don't accuse something of being the cause of something that it actually wasn't.

However, I don't know how many times I have to reiterate every single indicator as to why Orange would be a very suitable place for the location of this important agricultural institution. Yesterday afternoon, I think, I made the point that it is a decision of government. The government has exercised its right in making that decision, but in doing so it has provided, ad nauseam, a number of different reasons why it believes Orange is an extraordinarily suitable place for this organisation. As a rural and regional member of this parliament, I can assure you that I could go and speak to every one of my colleagues and they would all have somewhere in their electorates where they would like to have a government agency located. However, in doing so, everybody still has to demonstrate that it is a suitable place and an appropriate place and that there are strong reasons for the location of any government instrumentality in any area, rural or metropolitan. Quite clearly, Orange has a whole heap of factors and a whole heap of attributes that are attractive for the location of this instrumentality. I can go through them all again with you, but, in the interests of time, I will allow you to re-read Hansard to be informed of them.

Thank you, Minister. I find this very interesting and very enlightening because, essentially, you've said that there are a number of criteria from which the government has chosen this location, and you've put that on the record. Surely, Orange was not the only candidate. So my question, which builds upon Senator Brown's question, is: how many local council areas were approached about their interest in having the RIC housed within their regions? How many different centres were considered in the shortlist by government? On what criteria, specifically, that weren't demonstrable in other candidates was Orange chosen as the final location?

There were no other locations in Australia where currently a state department of agriculture and primary industries is located in a regional area. In the case of New South Wales, the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority are located already in Orange. The existence of infrastructure in the area makes Orange quite unique.

I can run through all the other reasons why Orange is particularly unique for this particular instrumentality, such as its proximity to both Canberra and Sydney, making it very easy to access, and the existence of a broad range of other organisations that are already there to create a centre of excellence and critical mass in the area. And, as you would know, from your previous experience of belonging to the same party that I do, we quite clearly as a government are trying to establish centres of excellence in our regional areas, so that we can create the economic activity that drives our regional economies because, at the risk of sounding parochially regional, it is our regional communities that drive the economy of this country.

Minister, I appreciate the answer, but, in the absence of further information, are you confirming that no council areas were approached about their willingness to have or provide for or welcome the RIC? If that's incorrect, and some were approached, and other areas were considered, how many were considered in that shortlist and approached? Is the government willing to detail which ones, exactly, were?

At the time of the announcement of the intention of the government to establish the Regional Investment Corporation, Minister Joyce put on the public record that there were a number of other locations that were considered, those being—though not exclusively—Albury Wodonga, Bathurst, Bendigo, Lithgow, Toowoomba and Wagga Wagga; they were also considered as locations for the RIC. However, Orange, on assessment, met a greater number of the criteria to establish a centre of excellence for agriculture for this particular organisation.

So, Minister, what you have just shown in that last answer is that there were some other possible locations and that there was an assessment process. Can you outline what that assessment process was, please?

Senator Rice, I advised you that other locations were considered, and the assessment process that was undertaken was obviously a process of the department in making recommendations. It was a matter for the government, and obviously Minister Joyce settled on the recommendation of Orange as being an eminently suitable location for the RIC.

Can I get some more clarification. So there was an assessment process, but it wasn't a process that the department undertook?

Senator Rice, as I've said before, it was a decision of government. I've just outlined that there were a number of other locations that were considered; however, the government made the decision that Orange was the most suitable location.

So it was a political decision? It wasn't an objective process that the department undertook that ended up going through some criteria and saying, 'Yes, after considering all of these criteria—on objective, transparent criteria—Orange came out on top.' It was a political decision made by the minister to establish this corporation in Orange because it suited his political purposes, because it is where the shooters and fishers are threatening to hold the seat which the Nationals lost to the shooters and fishers. It is pure, blatant pork-barrelling. You have not outlined that there was any process at all that was objective, that was transparent or that came through the department. It was a political decision by Minister Joyce, who has got form in making these types of political decisions.

At the risk of repeating myself, I've given you a series of criteria, and the attributes of the city of Orange as to which it was considered to be the most suitable. Those criteria obviously have been considered by government as meeting the objectives and the requirements of the location of this organisation better than a number of other locations that were considered, as I've pointed out, not exclusively but including the locations that I read out in response to the question that I received from Senator Bernardi. I can go through all of the reasons why Orange was considered to be the preferred location and why it was chosen as the location for the Regional Investment Corporation. However, as I say, in the interests of time, I won't waste the chamber's time.

You are still saying an assessment process was done. It wasn't done by the department; it was done by the government. Can I confirm how Minister Joyce's assessment, his office's assessment, was done by the government. Is it available? Can you outline how each of the other locations that were on the shortlist, such as Bathurst and Albury-Wodonga, compared with Orange. What was the assessment process that was undertaken? Can details of that assessment process be tabled so that there is some transparency and so that we can see, on the basis of these criteria, that Orange came out on top, because unless you can do that everything points to this just being a pure and simple pork-barrelling slush fund exercise of getting a government department in Orange to suit the National Party in these circumstances.

I, too, am interested in why the minister didn't consider Toowoomba, Albury-Wodonga and a whole range of other centres that were considered not as good as Orange.

I suppose the one underlying factor that differentiates Orange from the other places that were identified in the list I just gave is that the New South Wales department of agriculture is already located in Orange, and, given the other departments and institutions that are located in Orange, it was considered that there was already a significant hub of existing activity that the RIC would be able to support in creating the centre of excellence in Orange.

It is probably also worth pointing out that a number of the other locations that were considered have had agencies of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources relocated there as part of the government's overall decentralisation program, including the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the Grains Research and Development Corporation. There have been a number of agencies that have been moved to some of the other locations that were highlighted by Minister Joyce in announcing this particular proposal, so our overall policy of decentralisation is supporting a number of regional communities.

I want to follow on from those questions, and, while I tried to follow this as closely as I could yesterday, my apologies if I am covering ground that has been covered; let me know and I will refer back to the Hansard. You mentioned a moment ago that there were certain other areas that had been considered. Were they approached? Did they know they were being considered? I don't understand why the decision was made. I accept that it's within the government's power to make this decision, but why wasn't there any kind of open tender process? You're saying that you had set criteria against which you came to the decision you did, but why not let those communities and those areas put forward their own pitches for this kind of proposal? I am wondering why that was not how the decision was made.

At the risk of continuing to repeat myself, the Deputy Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, said that he stands by the government's decision, which in this case was his decision, in relation to the location of the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange.

That wasn't the question.

Let me finish. As I just said, it is a decision of government. The government has made that decision in the interests of being able to ensure that this organisation is able to get up and running as quickly as possible. The reality is that it is a decision of government. The government has made that decision. I have tried to provide you with as much information as I have available to me as to why this particular location was determined to be the most suitable regional location for the Regional Investment Corporation, and I really don't have a great deal more that I can add in response to your question.

I assume that with Senate estimates next week there will be a chance to go through this in a bit more detail. How does the coordination with the state government work on a matter like this? Was there coordination with the state government? Were there discussions with the state government? One of the reasons you gave for Orange being the location that was chosen was that the government felt that Orange was superior to the other locations. The key reason you gave was that the state department of agriculture is already based there. How did the coordination work? Were they contacted and was there discussion with them before the announcement was made?

I can't be explicit as to the timing of the discussions that would have occurred. Obviously, there could well have been discussions between the state minister and the federal minister about the suitability of the location and the relevance of the New South Wales government agencies that already exist and are established in Orange. But I can say that, as part of the stakeholder engagement program, there was formal consultation with the Department of Primary Industries; the NSW Rural Assistance Authority; Regional Development Australia, particularly the central west arm of that; Paraway Pastoral Company; the Rural Financial Counselling Service of New South Wales; the Orange City Council; Orange business chamber; and New South Wales Farmers.

It appears you're reading from a document which you've prepared, which is understandable, because it's fairly detailed, and you are representing the minister. Is that a document that is publicly available or is that consultation process something that can be tabled?

Senator, they are just my notes, which I wrote down, because we were dealing with a number of organisations—in this instance six particular organisations were consulted. These are just my working notes.

There are some people from the minister's office beside you who may have more detailed information. There must be a timeline of when the consultations took place in the process of coming to this decision. Is that information available?

I can certainly advise that there was a formal consultation that occurred with the particular agencies that I just outlined in Orange on 6 and 7 June this year.

On 6 and 7 June. What was the date of the announcement?

The initial announcement was made on 16 May 2017.

I know I'm a migrant and English is my second language and all of those things, but I would be correct in saying that, from a very, very quick kind of analysis, the announcement was made three weeks prior to the consultation process. That is obviously a matter of fact. The decision was made on 16 May and consultation was 6 and 7 June. What exactly were they consulting about if the decision had already been made?

We have been through this before. One of the key questions was around the criteria, particularly in relation to the loans facilities that are to be offered by this organisation, should this bill pass this place today. A lot of the consultation around the June and July period of this year—with myriad stakeholders, not just the ones that I have just discussed, who were particularly pertinent to the city of Orange—was about the criteria for those loans. It was also following the decision of government that we would be locating the RIC in Orange, should it be established. The consultation in Orange was particularly in relation to the operational arrangements and the program settings around the operation of the RIC.

If the decision was made on 16 May, do you have with you the date when the first announcement was made that this agency was going to be moved or developed in a regional area? When was the initial announcement made that something was going to happen, prior to the announcement of Orange? Is it correct to say that the announcement of the decision, which is a decision of government, and no-one is disputing that you are able to make that decision, that it was going the go to Orange was made on 16 May? I assume there was an announcement at some point before that, without naming the location, something was going to happen. When was that?

The announcement in relation to the proposed establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation was actually an election commitment by government. However, the specific announcement of the mechanism to proceed for the establishment was announced by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on 9 May. Subsequently, some week later, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the decision of government to have the corporation located at Orange had been made.

Minister, you mention the half-a-dozen or so—I think it was slightly more—different locations that were broadly under consideration. I think you mentioned Wagga and Toowoomba and others as well. Was that consideration done prior to 9 May, or was that done between 9 May and 16 May?

I am going to have to say, Senator Dastyari, that I can't give you an exact date in relation to the decision-making process in relation to the other towns that I put forward. Certainly, the Deputy Prime Minister publicly stated that these other towns and cities had been considered, in his announcement of Orange being the preferred location. I'm not going to answer a question if I don't have the answer.

You talked about the consultation process that was undertaken in Orange after it had been selected as the place for the headquarters. Was there any consultation done in any of the other cities that were considered—Bathurst, Albury Wodonga, Wagga and the other ones that were considered?

As I responded to the question from Senator Dastyari, the consultation that was undertaken with these organisations in Orange was in relation to the loans criteria, which we discussed a little earlier in the day, and also in relation to the operational arrangements that would sit around the establishment and the operation of the RIC in Orange. Obviously, these discussions in relation to the operation of the organisation within Orange took place after the decision was made that Orange was the location that the government had chosen for the RIC to be established in.

But was there any equivalent consultation, even about the loans schemes, undertaken in the other cities, and were the other cities given any opportunity to put forward their case to the minister as to why they should be considered the location for the headquarters of the RIC?

To be clear: we're talking about two separate issues here. Earlier today—I don't know whether you were in the chamber—we listed a number of organisations, industry participants and stakeholders that were consulted in relation to the criteria of the loans and the general operations of the RIC, but most particularly about the criteria that sat around the loans, which you were so interested in a little while ago. There were about 55 different stakeholders that were formally consulted as part of that process, including instruments of government in the other states around Australia, as well as industry and communities and governments—and banks, obviously, as well, given that it was a loan facility. Quite separately, that consultation occurred in relation to the loans facility.

That's a different question than the question in relation to the location of Orange. As I said to Senator Dastyari, as I said to Senator Brown, as I've said to you and as I've said to Senator Bernardi, it was a decision of government.

The reason I want to clarify this is that you indicated to Senator Dastyari before that there was in fact some level of consultation about Orange, but you've now clarified that there was never a level of consultation in terms of the location where the RIC was going to be established. Can I clarify then also that, for those other potential locations for the headquarters of the RIC, there was never any opportunity for those to put forward their case as to why they should be considered the potential locations for the RIC to be established?

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, the location of the RIC in Orange was a decision of government. I have given you all of the background as to why the RIC was chosen. The government and the minister stand by the decision that Orange is the most suitable and the best place for the location. I have provided information to you and to others in the chamber in relation to other locations that were considered by government as possibly being locations for the RIC. The decision of government was that Orange was the preferred location.

Thank you for that response, Minister. About those other locations that the minister indicated were considered, did those towns self-nominate? How were those towns determined to be a possible site for the location of the RIC?

As I said, it was a matter for government and the government obviously—

It's just a simple question.

I know. I'm allowed to answer it just the way I want. It's a matter for government and government has made its decision.

But the question, Minister, wanted a simple yes or no answer. How were those other sites put on that short list? Were they nominated? Did they even know they were on that short list? Was there any opportunity for any location to provide advice to the minister as to why they felt they were the most appropriate site, or was the process just one of the minister plucking Orange out because he felt that it was the most appropriate location?

Senator Rice, no, there was no submission process. However, if you look at the names of the towns I read out, they quite clearly are prominent regional towns in Australia. That was why they would have been identified by government as potential locations for such an organisation as the RIC. However, the decision of government was that Orange was the most suitable.

Is it the case, then, that the minister was sitting around a table, having a look at various locations, and just made the decision all by himself? Is that what happened? Is that what your process was?

At the time the decision was made I was not in the near vicinity of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think, when you consider all of the reasons Orange is a suitable location, you would have to acknowledge that it is. The deliberations of government as to why Orange was chosen, I think, are self-evident in the characteristics of this particular town.

What we're attempting to tease out here—which is proving to be quite difficult—is what the process was prior to the selection of Orange and prior to the subsequent consultation that was had with various organisations in Orange. We want to know how those other locations were chosen as possible locations. Were organisations or local councils in those areas contacted about providing information as to why their town would be a good site for the RIC? We are trying to understand what the process is. In the absence of a response that satisfies what really is a very simple question, we have to assume that this decision of locating the RIC in Orange is a decision that Minister Joyce made himself. We have no idea as to what informed his decision.

Senator Brown, I have said that it was a decision of government. I have given you a series of towns and locations that were considered by the ministers as potentially being appropriate. I have advised you that the decision of government was that Orange was considered to be the most suitable. I'm not sure what further information I can provide you, apart from saying that it is entirely within the authority of the government to make the decision, and it's made it.

I do feel for you, Minister, because it's very clear that you have not got any information to give us, because there was clearly a very inadequate process, if you can call it a process at all. There was no submission process. It sounds like the towns that were apparently on this short list didn't even know that they were on the short list. And why were those towns on the short list whereas other towns that equally could have been on the short list, like Launceston and Cairns, were not? So you aren't able to share any more information with us, but it just goes to the point that there was clearly no objective, transparent process for the selection of the short list. It sounds to me like the minister was riffing off names and saying, 'Yes, we could think of these six cities that possibly could have been sites, and we are choosing Orange.' I have nothing against Orange. It's a lovely place, and there are some criteria as to why it could be appropriate for it to be there, but the point is process. The point is having an appropriate, objective, transparent, accountable, evidence based process that you aren't able to share with us because it's quite clear that it doesn't exist.

That is a statement of your opinion.

You can always enlighten us as to whether the contribution by Senator Rice is correct or not, but I would like to ask: did the decision on the location of the RIC to Orange go to cabinet?

I'm not in cabinet. The department, obviously, equally isn't in cabinet. We are not aware that the decision went to cabinet.

I find that an extraordinary statement, because surely the department would know. They would be preparing the paperwork. They would know whether this was an issue that went to cabinet.

Senator Brown, I have just said the department is not aware that the matter went to cabinet. I am not aware whether the matter went to cabinet. I'm not saying it didn't go to cabinet; I'm just saying that we are not aware that it did.

Just to touch on a point you made earlier, Minister, you outlined the consultation that took place on 6 and 7 June. You also outlined that 16 May was when the decision was made about Orange. Was there consultation also before 16 May—not just consideration but consultation—with the agencies and groups that you referred to for the 6 and 7 June meetings?

Not that I'm aware of.

If you're not aware of any consultation—I specifically asked about Orange—with the other six or seven that you mentioned, which I believe were also in the minister's statement or release when he made the announcement on 16 May, are you aware of any consultation with any of them beforehand?

No, I'm not.

So the only consultation we're aware of that you can confirm is consultation that took place three weeks after the decision had been made?

There were a series of consultations that have taken place in relation to this particular instrumentality, particularly in relation to the criteria for the loans package. So, to be absolutely accurate, there was consultation that has been taking place over the period of the development of this proposal to form the Regional Investment Corporation. In specific reference to the establishment and the location of the RIC in Orange, I can advise that, to the best of my knowledge, there was no consultation taken prior to the announcement.

Across the table the minister did indicate that, to the best of the department's knowledge, the decision on the location did not go to cabinet. Can you confirm that, please?

Yes, I can confirm that.

The CHAIR: The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Brown, that amendment (5) on sheet 8225 be agreed to.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet EF114 together:

(1) Clause 12, page 11 (after line 15), after subclause (3), insert:

  (3A) In giving a direction under subsection (3), the responsible Ministers must exercise their powers consistently with the Water Act 2007.

  (3B) Before giving a direction under subsection (3) in relation to a water infrastructure project that is wholly or partly within the Murray-Darling Basin (as defined by the Water Act 2007), the responsible Ministers must seek the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's advice as to whether in giving the direction, the Ministers would be exercising the Ministers' powers consistently with the Basin Plan (as defined by the Water Act 2007).

(2) Clause 12, page 11 (after line 18), after subclause (4), insert:

  (4A) If:

(a) the responsible Ministers give a direction under subsection (3) to the Corporation to enter into an agreement; and

(b) the direction is one in relation to which the responsible Ministers received advice from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority under subsection (3B);

then:

(c) the Board must notify the responsible Ministers when the agreement has been entered into; and

(d) the responsible Ministers must publish the advice on the internet within 30 business days of receiving the notice under paragraph (c).

The government amendments to the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 relate to directions that the responsible ministers are able to give to the corporation under clause 12(3) directions to enter into grants of financial assistance for water infrastructure projects. That directions power is an important part of the government's arrangements of the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility and provides the mechanism for government to communicate its decisions on projects that have been approved for a loan. The amendment makes it clear that, in giving a direction under clause 12(3), the responsible ministers need to exercise their powers consistently with the Water Act 2007. They will also have to seek the advice of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority before issuing a direction under clause 12(3). This requirement ensures that the responsible ministers receive advice on the consistency of the projects with the Basin Plan from the independent body that is best placed to make the assessment. The government is committed to working with states and territories to build the water infrastructure needed for agricultural industries to expand and increase their productivity, and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility is a critical part of that commitment.

We are also committed to meeting our water management obligations, and this amendment makes that clear and should provide confidence to the senators in supporting this bill. In moving this amendment, I acknowledge in particular the interest of senators from my home state of South Australia in making sure that we are absolutely explicit that there is no impact on the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and in particular water policy by this organisation. I thank Senator Xenophon for his work with me and the department on ensuring that we have the very clearest of conditions included in the bill to make sure that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is delivered in full and on time and that the Water Act and water policy are not compromised in any way.

I indicate that, obviously, we support this amendment. This is an important amendment in the context of ensuring that there is no ambiguity in how the Regional Investment Corporation will operate in the context of water policy and that the Water Act will not in any way be affected by this and, in particular, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and sustainable diversion limits. The amendment is self-evident. Senator Ruston has alluded to productive discussions that I've had with her and the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of this. I believe this is a belts-and-braces approach, to put it colloquially, to ensure there is no ambiguity in terms of the impact of any water projects funded under the Regional Investment Corporation legislation. It will provide strong guarantees in directions in terms of the Murray-Darling Basin, that it must be transparent and that responsible ministers within the basin receive advice. That includes the Minister for Water and the River Murray in South Australia, the Hon. Ian Hunter, who has a strong interest in these issues as well. I have spoken to the honourable Mr Hunter in the last 36 hours about the need for this.

I may ask one question of the minister just so that it's on the record. It's something I have discussed with departmental officers. Does this amendment give rights of judicial review to those who have standing to ensure that it is complied with? In other words, we're not just saying that this must be complied with; can it actually be enforced through a judicial review process?

To clarify the point that you've just raised: under the Water Act and sections 34 and 35 of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012, it is not lawful for the Commonwealth or a state to construct water infrastructure, whether it is funded by the RIC or by any other mechanism, that would alter the level of take above the relevant SDL in that basin. There are well-established avenues of redress for people or entities, including the state and territories, who are or who believe themselves to be adversely affected by any administrative decisions, including the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, so there is nothing in the act that detracts in any way from the longstanding protections of the administrative law that the public may seek judicial review of decisions by the courts.

Labor will be supporting the government's amendments because they do provide additional confidence that water proposals which will be put forward by the responsible ministers to the RIC within the Murray-Darling Basin will need to comply with the basin plan. The amendments will also require the RIC board to consult with the basin authority. I'm not surprised that Senator Xenophon talked about ambiguity in this area, because that ambiguity and that concern follows some of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister in response to allegations that water is being taken out of the basin: essentially, that there was nothing to see here.

This is another example of why this corporation is different from other, similar entities. The influence of the responsible ministers means that the corporation lacks the proper independence and transparency required for the corporation to work effectively and efficiently. But we, as I have said, will be supporting the government's amendments.

The Greens will also be supporting these government amendments. We note in the contributions by the minister and by Senator Xenophon phrases like, 'It's going to ensure that there's no ambiguity,' and, 'It's a belt-and-braces approach, giving certainty and confidence.' Minister, is there actually anything in these amendments that does change things other than as they would already have been underneath the Water Act? What difference will it make to water projects—compared to the Water Act—if this legislation, and this amendment in particular, is passed?

In essence, the answer is nothing, but what we are seeking to do by this is be explicit in the bill so that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Regional Investment Corporation cannot override the requirements of the Water Act or, specifically in doing so, the full implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I may take some slight issue with what the minister has said—not a big issue; don't panic, it's okay! I just wanted to say that Senator Rice's question is a very important question. My understanding, from a point of view of statutory interpretation is that where you have two competing acts there sometimes may be some ambiguity. Having this particular amendment removes that ambiguity. I think it's fair to say that what Senator Ruston said is absolutely right—the intent is that the Water Act is at all times adhered to, particularly when it comes to sustainable diversion limits and the like. But, if there could potentially, as a question of law, sometimes be a conflict between the two acts which could be the subject of legal argument, this amendment would remove that issue of legal argument. You've got some esteemed lawyers from the department behind you who know more about administrative law than I ever will—apart from being a plaintiff or defendant in administrative law cases. I suggest to Senator Rice that this amendment is doing some good work. It's not just a symbolic amendment; it actually ensures that there cannot be an argument down the track to say that the Regional Investment Corporation Act takes precedence over the Water Act, which could be a potential argument. That's my jurisprudential lesson for the day. Maybe the lawyers there will disagree with me; I'll try and dig up some case law if they do, so just give me a moment.

And I probably wasn't exactly accurate in my response to you, Senator Rice. The requirement for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to prejudge an action by the RIC in relation to water infrastructure as having complied with the Water Act is an additional requirement that does not currently exist. So I should correct myself and say, yes, there is an additional level of protection that is added by the requirement to predetermine the compliance with the act.

To clarify, it depends on your definition of 'symbolic', then, as to it giving that extra certainty, but, essentially, other than that additional requirement of compliance, all of the measures that are in this amendment are just repeating things that are in the Water Act.

My office sought advice from environmental lawyers about this amendment, and it does do useful things around the rights and enforcement of the Water Act. There may well be environmental lawyers who Senator Rice deals with as well, but I think it is a belt-and-braces approach in a meaningful way.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet EF114 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (7) on sheet 8225:

(7) Page 23 (after line 10), after clause 41, insert:

41A Disclosure of interests

(1) The CEO must give written notice to the Board of any disclosure made by the CEO under section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with the duty to disclose interests).

(2) Subsection (1) applies in addition to any rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

(3) For the purposes of this Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the CEO is taken not to have complied with section 29 of that Act if the CEO does not comply with subsection (1) of this section.

The government moved its own amendments in the House to address concerns raised in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report on this bill. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA argued that a board membership of three was too small, arguing that the size of the board and its composition should be similar to that found in private financial organisations in order to cover the range of qualifications.

In addition to the board size amendments, we have seen the government moving further amendments which clearly show the lack of proper consultation in the development of the current bill, and we urge all senators to support our amendments requiring the CEO to disclose any personal or acquired conflicts of interest. This amendment will strengthen the independence and transparency of the corporation.

Minister Ruston earlier made reference to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, claiming that the RIC is established under the same legislative scrutiny as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. If this is true, the government should have undertaken this amendment on their own to ensure that the CEO discloses any personal interest that she or he may have or acquire which would be in conflict with the proper performance of the CEO's duties.

Disclosing any conflicts of interest by the CEO is about transparency to ensure that decisions made by the CEO are made without personal influence or indeed external influence. Ensuring that the CEO discloses any conflicts of interest will reduce the risk of any potential for corruption and/or misconduct. For the minister's information, that is a part of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We hope that the government will consider this amendment, see that this is an amendment worthy of support and support the amendment before us now.

Thank you, Senator Brown. Firstly, the reason that we are not supporting this particular amendment is that we believe that it's actually counter to the normal operation of disclosure-of-interests requirements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and associated rule. It would also remove the responsibility otherwise appropriately allocated to the board.

As you would be aware, the PGPA Act requires officials of Commonwealth entities to disclose any material personal interests that relate to the affairs of the entity, and it also requires and provides for rules to prescribe how and when those interests are to be disclosed. The PGPA Rule provides for the board, as the accountable authority of the entity, to instruct how officials of the corporation, including the CEO, are to disclose the interests.

There were a couple of comments that you made. You made the comment about three not being a sufficient number of people on the board. You'll note from the legislation that it says 'up to five'. It doesn't say three. It's also worth pointing out that the establishment of the CEFC actually preceded the PGPA Act, so it would not have been relevant to make the correlation between the two.

The Greens will be supporting this amendment from the Labor Party and think that having the level of disclosure is an important extra element to be adding to this. Again, given the issues that we've been discussing this morning about how much power is vested in the minister, having elements of transparency and accountability by the board, and particularly with a potentially small board, is really critical. I note the minister saying that the board can be up to five. You may as well say that the board could be up to 11. If you can have a board of only three, that's the minimum. If you've got a board of only three and you don't necessarily have to have the high levels of disclosure that would be required by this amendment, you have serious potential issues of accountability.

The whole way this legislation has been drafted leads us to have really serious concerns about the accountability at the ministerial level and then at the board level. As to the sorts of processes that have occurred—or the lack of process, as we have previously discussed—on significant issues, as to where the corporation is going to be located: it is very clear there was a lack of process. And this goes to the heart of the problems with this whole corporation in the way it is being set up: the lack of transparency, accountability and good governance process in its establishment.

I won't take up too much time, but I rise to support Senator Rice's contribution. We are talking about a corporation that is administering $4 billion. As to suggesting that a minimum of three on the board is sufficient—it isn't. Throughout this bill, we have seen that the good governance isn't there and the level of transparency that we would normally expect to see under similar legislation is not there. We've just had the discussion about the process undertaken around the location of the RIC. Well, there was actually no consultation, and I think it's fair to say that at least we now understand that there is no location. But this is a regional corporation that is administering $4 billion, and this government is suggesting that just having a minimum of three board members is sufficient. As to this amendment that we have before us now, all it's asking is that there be a disclosure of conflict of interest. I understand, and I take on board, what the minister said in response to my first contribution on this amendment. But, given the lack of governance and the lack of transparency, and the fact that it has been very difficult to find any information around this bill coming from the minister or the government, I really believe that, if what the minister says is correct, there should be no issue with the government supporting this amendment.

The government won't be supporting this amendment because, despite what you have outlined in terms of saying that there's a lower level of accountability in relation to this, we believe that the PGPA Act provides the same level and is the appropriate place under which this should be administered.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (7) on sheet 8225 be agreed to.

Order! It being 12.45, the Senate will now move to senators' statements.

In the early 20th century, polio was one of the most feared diseases in industrialised countries, paralysing hundreds of thousands of children every year. For many Australians, polio may seem like just another disease that has been non-existent for years. However, those born before 1955 remember having a great fear of this horrible disease, which crippled thousands of once active, healthy children. It was a disease that had no cure or identifiable causes and it could not be contained, making it all the more terrifying. Although other diseases of the era had much higher mortality rates, none had the permanent ramifications that polio did. Everyone was affected when there was epidemic outbreak. People lived in constant fear that they would be next to catch the disease or, worse, one of their children would contract polio. The lives of polio victims and those who cared for them were changed forever by the impairments that victims of polio suffered. It was not until the development and distribution of the vaccine against polio that people could have a secure sense of hope that they would not fall victim to this paralysing disease.

In 1954, the first vaccinations against polio, developed by Jonas Salk, were given to children in the United States. Following the development of an oral polio vaccine in 1956 by Albert Sabin, polio was finally brought under control and practically eliminated as a health problem in most industrialised nations. However, it took somewhat longer for polio to be recognised as a major problem in developing countries. It wasn't until the 1970s that routine immunisation was introduced worldwide as part of national immunisation programs, helping to control the disease in many developing nations.

However, tackling these polio cases was, and remains, rather difficult. Conflict, political instability, hard-to-reach populations and poor infrastructure pose significant challenges to eradicating the disease, as is the too often cultural mistrust over immunisation programs. To get the job done requires delivering the vaccine to the door of every household, explaining to parents the importance of protecting their children from polio and preparing communities to welcome the vaccination campaigns. It requires mobilising and training millions of volunteers and it requires funding. Since its inception, the drive to eradicate polio has been an expression of the power of public health partnerships to do great and lasting good.

In polio circles, one organisation remains famous for its steadfast commitment and its hard-nosed determination to eradicate polio across the world—of course, I speak of Rotary. Rotary International is the top private sector contributor and volunteer arm of the eradication initiative. Polio eradication has remained Rotary's highest interest project for over 20 years. Rotary's PolioPlus program has been described as the finest humanitarian project by a non-government organisation the world has ever known, and has seen Rotary nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts. Thanks to Rotary's advocacy efforts, donor governments, including Australia, have contributed more than $7.2 billion to the global eradication of polio.

Rotarians have matched dollar for dollar the $100 million US commitment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to eradicate polio. Rotarians have mobilised and trained millions of volunteers, giving public health a new model of service delivery. In their determination to rid the world of polio, Rotarians have not only opened doors at the highest political levels, but most importantly opened the doors of homes at the grassroots level, because this is where the important matter of trust counts the most. When concerned parents want to know if a vaccine is safe, if it is really needed for a child, they trust the answers Rotarians offer them. From the very beginning, Rotarians have contributed practical, on-the-ground experience as proof that striving for a vision is feasible.

In 1978 Rotary set up a committee to design a program for Rotary International to undertake projects far greater than any club or district could do alone. Of the 16 projects proposed from around the world, one proposal from the Philippines stood out—that, if Rotary could provide the vaccine, they would mobilise all of the Rotarians in the entire Philippines and immunise all Filipino children. This led to some six million children being immunised against polio.

In 1982 the board of Rotary International approved the idea of giving polio vaccinations to all children across the globe. The project was called Polio 2005. In 1985 Rotary set a fundraising goal of $120,000 and changed the name of the project to PolioPlus. It was the first major fundraising campaign by Rotarians of the world for a single project.

However, by 1987 Rotary had surpassed the goal of raising over $240 million, leading to Rotary leaders going to the World Health Organization and saying to them that they wanted to join in their task of eradicating polio. As Cliff Dochterman, a former president of Rotary International from 1992 to 1993, who was at the meeting with the World Health Organization, said:

It was not well accepted by all the WHO leaders who represented some of the most knowledgeable health authorities in the world. Rotary was "just a service club." Finally, when Rotary told them that we had over a million volunteers and $247 million in our pocket, they said, "Come on in." So we became full partners of the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the US Centers for Disease Control.

At that time, in 1988, you could find polio in 125 nations of the world and it was estimated that there were 350,000 cases of polio in the world every year. But we took on the project – one country at a time. Our first big immunization day was in Mexico, where we immunized 13 million children. Then we went to Central America and South America. One nation after another became "polio free."

Since the launch of Rotary International's PolioPlus program in 1985, Rotary has contributed more than $1.7 billion and countless volunteer hours to immunise more than 2.5 billion children across 122 countries. Thanks to the success of this program, there are now just three polio epidemic countries with 37 polio cases worldwide, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 per cent since 1988, when there were over 350,000 polio cases. Thanks to the steadfast commitment of over 1.2 million Rotarians across the world, the world may soon be rid of this ancient disease, which has destroyed so many childhoods and broken so many hearts.

I rise today to talk about the Turnbull government's latest policy on power prices. We—and, indeed, Australian voters—have waited a long time for this. I say 'latest' because we've had a series of policies, which have mostly gone backwards. Despite some in the government wanting to move forwards, we on this side know that the power in the Turnbull government rests with its extreme minority of right-wing members. It is they who are really running this government. They are mostly backbenchers, led by the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who, as my colleague Senator Urquhart said yesterday, is a Prime Minister in everything except his salary. That is certainly what is observable to us on this side of the parliament.

What we saw yesterday, with the government's energy price announcement, was more of the same. It lacked detail because we know it's not really a policy; it's something that was developed on the run because Mr Turnbull is beholden to that small group of backbenchers and because he's more interested in saving his own job and the role of Prime Minister than genuinely delivering to Australians some relief on power prices and making sure that there is a supply that is steady and reliable, in consultation with the states.

We embarked upon an investigation by the Chief Scientist, who was tasked with undertaking a review. He produced the Finkel report. Given that the government commissioned that inquiry and commissioned the Chief Scientist to undertake the work, I think that not only the Labor Party, but the Australian community and, indeed, business had some expectation that the Finkel report would be implemented. But no. Fairly soon we started to hear those familiar rumblings of that tiny little rump of backbenchers and the speeches that the former Prime Minister, or shadow Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, started to make that we weren't going to get Finkel. So, despite a fair bit of media around the report when it was first out there and was completed, we soon started to hear silence from the so-called leaders of government, Mr Turnbull and his team of ministers, because we really knew that that little rump of backbenchers led by the shadow Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, was once again calling the shots, because the Prime Minister is certainly more wedded to saving his job, the job of Prime Minister, than he is to any serious reform or making the tough decisions required in relation to energy policy.

We've seen business calling out for certainty around energy policy. On the Labor side, we have committed and recommitted that we are prepared to work in a bipartisan way with government as long as it's not a joke—as long as there's some genuine meat on the bones of energy policy and as long as it is heading in the right direction. The sorts of things that Finkel said were mostly things that Labor could agree to. But yesterday we saw a brand-new policy. It isn't policy. I listened to Minister Frydenberg closely on the radio this morning. Yesterday there was this announcement that there were some savings in the policy—they're pretty meagre—but what Minister Frydenberg said on the radio this morning is that it 'could' lead to lower prices—not that it would but that it could. That's not something that you can call a policy. That was an idea cobbled together at the last minute that was agreed to in the Liberal party room yesterday because the Prime Minister knows he's got to put something on the table.

Further proof that it was cobbled together yesterday or the day before, perhaps late into the evening, came when we had Ms Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, on radio yesterday and she couldn't explain anything about the policy. She just said she didn't know. She's a senior person in the government and a very experienced minister not just in the current government but in previous governments, but when she was asked some very basic questions she had no idea. She could have said, 'We've got a properly costed policy, but it needs to go to the party room.' She could have said, 'Yes, we've got the plans in place, but it's got to go to the party room.' We all accept that we have to take things to our party room, but she didn't say any of that. She could not answer basic questions.

We on the Labor side are very keen to put to bed this issue of energy prices to give certainty to Australian households who are struggling and to give some certainty to business, including those business leaders and industries who've been crying out and have come to Canberra on delegations to say to the Prime Minister, 'Let's settle energy policy in this country once and for all.' We thought it might happen yesterday. I have to say I was pretty sceptical, judging by what's happened to any other policy that's a little bit controversial in the government ranks. It gets taken by that little group of right-wingers, led by the shadow Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and it just gets knocked on the head. That is indeed what happened yesterday. It is completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to stand in the parliament, as he did yesterday, and make this new announcement about energy prices, to say that there will be savings to households, and then for the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, to say this morning on radio not that it 'would' lead to a reduction in prices but that it 'could'.

Well, I think Australians are well and truly fed up with the empty promises of the Turnbull government, because nothing that they say can be taken for granted. My first thoughts yesterday went to the postal ballot that we are being forced to have at the moment over same-sex marriage. I now truly am very concerned about it. If a 'yes' vote comes back—and certainly that's what those of us on this side of the chamber and a number of others on the other side of the chamber have been working for—what will that right-wing group, mostly people who oppose same-sex marriage in this country, do once the 'yes' vote comes out? We've seen what they're prepared to do on energy policy, and it's not just energy policy. We've seen policy after policy get turned over, changed, because a little handful of government backbenchers don't like the outcome.

If we can't now settle this question of marriage equality in this country once and for all and recognise that love is love regardless of gender, I for one will not be silent about it. It will be, I think, the death knell of the Turnbull government if that's what that group of backbenchers choose to do to it or if—if the media is correct—they put together a bill that is completely unacceptable, a bill that those of us on this side of the parliament will be unable to support. Now, given this direction—it's not even a direction. Given this fluffy announcement about energy policy, I'm very concerned about how we deal with the question of marriage equality, which is, I would guess, much more strongly contested on the Liberal side of politics.

But, coming back to energy policy, there's no evidence base around this. It's not a policy; it's a thought bubble. Perhaps it is one that's been voted in by the Liberal party room, but it's not a policy, because a policy would be properly fleshed out. It would have some analysis around it. It would have some evidence based policymaking. And, given that it's really the states and territories who will make this decision, it would have the support of state and territory ministers. But, as I understand it, they haven't been consulted either. So again it's just a throwaway: 'Gosh, we've got to do something. We can't agree to Finkel because of this little rump of right-wingers in our party.' This is a Prime Minister desperate to save his own job. He's quite prepared to allow Australians to face much higher energy prices and to leave industry out. (Time expired)

Today, in the High Court of Australia, the radical and extremist antiprotest laws that were brought in by the Will Hodgman government in Tasmania were ruled, in large part, to be unconstitutional. That is because they unreasonably burdened the implied right to political communication that is enshrined in the Constitution of this country.

The High Court decision today, handed down earlier this morning, is a humiliating defeat for the forces within the Liberal Party, the radicals and the extremists within the Liberal Party, who seek to silence freedom of political expression in this country. Make no mistake, the overriding intent behind this legislation was to stop conservationists being able to express their political opinions in Australia. The legislation contained absolutely draconian provisions, including mandatory imprisonment for people who were engaged in peaceful protest designed to allow themselves to express political opinion.

Of course, what happened was Will Hodgman, after years and years in the political wilderness in Tasmania, was elected to government in 2014 and at his first taste of power failed the true test of leadership. Because he was drunk on power after so long in opposition, and no doubt egged on by Tasmania's most radical, extremist senator, Senator Eric Abetz, he moved forward with the draconian, extremist provisions of the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 that were struck down by the High Court this morning. An inexperienced premier egged on by Senator Eric Abetz, the most radical, extremist senator that currently represents Tasmania, had a rush of blood. He was drunk on power at his very first taste and he put in place laws specifically designed to stop people peacefully protesting and expressing their political convictions in this country.

It is a great day for this country that certain provisions of this legislation have been struck down by the High Court today, and it is a humiliating defeat for Will Hodgman, for Eric Abetz and for everyone else who supported or voted for this obnoxious piece of legislation. It's worth pointing out that the Tasmanian government was warned at length that certain parts of these laws were clearly unconstitutional because they were a burden on the right of the Australian people to express themselves politically and they were clearly and manifestly disproportionate to the aim of the legislation.

I want to quote from Will Hodgman's minister at the time, Mr Harris, in response to observations that I made to him in the Tasmanian parliament. He said, 'We are confident of our legal position.' Well, egg on the face of Will Hodgman's minister there. Confident of his legal position? Not as it turns out. Later on, Mr Harris said to me and to the Tasmanian parliament, 'The bill protects the right to free speech.' No, it doesn't; no, it didn't—and so the High Court have effectively found today.

We have this situation now thanks to a former senator in this place, Dr Bob Brown, who for the umpteenth time in his public life in this country demonstrated that, above any other politician in my experience, he has the courage of his convictions. He got arrested in the Lapoinya forest protesting—

You may not have liked him, but he is better than the current one.

Senator Seselja again does his Bill the Steam Shovel impression down there. I don't really care what Senator Seselja is saying, because it won't be relevant or make any sense to the discussion we're having here. But, once again, former Senator Brown demonstrated the courage of his convictions. He was arrested in Lapoinya forest while he was trying to shoot a video expressing his views about the logging of that forest. It's a forest that I've been to and I believe, Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, that you have too. I'm sure you'd agree with me that it's a beautiful little patch of forest that means so much to the local people there in terms of recreation and their wellbeing. Many local people in that area feel an almost spiritual connection to that forest, much of which has now been destroyed by the loggers in Tasmania.

So former Senator Brown, now Dr Brown, was arrested. I've lost count of the number of times Dr Brown has been arrested. It must be pretty close to double figures now. Every time, he's been arrested on behalf of the Australian people, standing up for what he believes—and I agree—are important issues, like the future of our planetary ecology and like the right that people hold in this country to express their political opinions.

The first humiliating backdown that happened in regard to this matter was when the charges had to be dropped by the Tasmanian government because, once they'd examined the circumstances closely, it turned out that Dr Brown wasn't in a workplace after all. In fact, it's highly likely he was standing in a nature reserve while he was arrested. That's the first point to make: humiliation No. 1 for Will Hodgman and Senator Eric Abetz, those extremists who brought in this law designed to silence political communication in this country, was that they had to drop the charges against the former Senator Brown. But the former Senator Brown, as he has done through his life and his political career, wasn't prepared to let the matter rest and he maintained his challenge against these draconian laws in the High Court.

There are some very big implications of this decision today. Firstly, extremists like Senator Abetz have got egg all over their face. But, secondly, and really importantly, the High Court's decision today can give confidence to the Australian people that they can take action on the ground to stop the proposed Adani coalmine. It is the Australian people who are going to stop this planet- and climate-destroying coalmine, this Great Barrier Reef-destroying coalmine. And they're going to stop it because they've been abandoned by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics—the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party—who in zombie lock step, as they so often are, are backing this climate-destroying mine. The Australian people can now have confidence that they can protest against this mine and peacefully blockade against this mine. Make no mistake, that is what is going to happen. As a result of the passion and conviction of the Australian people and not the passion and conviction of any of us in this place, not even such legends as the former Senator Bob Brown, this mine will not go ahead. It will be stopped by ordinary Australians exercising their democratic right to protest and their democratic and constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of political expression. That is the real value of the High Court decision today: to give confidence and impetus to the people's campaign to stop the climate-destroying Adani coalmine. That's what the High Court has done today. I congratulate those judges of the High Court who stood up for our Constitution and stood up for the implied right to political communication enshrined in our constitution.

I always enjoy it when a Greens senator calls other people 'extremists'. Senator McKim is part of a party that regularly gets about eight per cent of the vote, so we can only assume what the Australian people think of the Greens views of the world. But I'd like to move on to more positive issues. As the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, it was a great privilege for me to host the annual Diwali festival here in our parliament's Great Hall this week. This was the fourth time I've had the honour of hosting the event, which is always one of the highlights of the year. Diwali is one of the most important events on the Hindu calendar. It is the Hindu festival of lights, celebrated every year in autumn in the Northern Hemisphere and in spring in the Southern Hemisphere. This festival spiritually signifies the victory of light over darkness, of good over evil, of knowledge over ignorance and of hope over despair. Diwali is a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge the great blessing of living in a land of peace and tolerance, where diversity is valued and celebrated.

At this wonderful festival we had many distinguished guests. I'd like to take this time to thank them. They included His Excellency Dr AM Gondane, the High Commissioner of India, and his wife; His Excellency Mr Yogesh Punja, the High Commissioner of Fiji, and Mrs Punja; Her Excellency Mrs Lucky Sherpa, the High Commissioner of Nepal; and Her Excellency Mrs Himalee Arunatilaka, the Deputy High Commissioner of Sri Lanka. I'd like to also thank the representatives of the various faith groups in our own community who attended the festival, including Archbishop Christopher Prowse, Mr Fethullah Erdogan from the Bluestar Intercultural Centre, Dr Willie Senanayake from the Canberra Buddhist society, Mr Amardeep Singh from the Canberra Sikh Association and Sitesh Bhojani from BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha.

I'd also like to thank a number of colleagues who attended this event, but I particularly pay tribute to the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser, who is the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of India; and my friend and predecessor as the minister responsible for multicultural affairs, Craig Laundy. It was great to see our local ACT opposition leader, Mr Alistair Coe, attending and supporting the local Hindu community; Professor Nihal Agar, chairman of the Hindu Council of Australia; and all of the other members of the Hindu Council. The evening was a huge success. It was filled with colour, feasting, dancing, singing and lights and music. Thank you to all who attended and those who worked so hard to organise and coordinate this most important celebration.

On 26 September, I was honoured, as the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, to open the new Department of Social Services headquarters in Tuggeranong. It was funded by the coalition government and built by the Cromwell Property Group. DSS is, of course, Australia's social policy agency dedicated to improving the wellbeing of all Australians. Policies and programs designed, developed and evaluated by DSS reach Australians in every corner of the country. At some stage of their life, every Australian is touched by the tireless work of this department. This building will now become the centre of this essential work with the additional benefit of both the policy and program areas now being located together in the same space for the first time.

Several years ago, it was being considered by the former Labor government to move the location of the DSS headquarters from the town centre in Tuggeranong. I spoke very strongly against this, along with the community in Tuggeranong and southern Canberra, because local businesses and local residents understand the importance of these anchor tenants to our town centres and the importance of having those jobs close by. It was a great victory for the people of Tuggeranong and southern Canberra not just to have the commitment from the Commonwealth to keep DSS there but also to have the brand new building, which locks in a long-term lease. I think it is great accommodation for our hardworking DSS staff. Our town centres are critically important to the model that we have in Canberra.

It was great to be at the opening of the facility. I made the point there that there are a lot of people who like to bash Canberra. There are a lot of people who like to bash public servants. What I've seen in the opportunities I have had to work with the staff at DSS is people who are thoroughly committed to serving the Australian people and thoroughly committed to serving the Australian government. I've seen absolute professionalism from those staff and I've been very proud to work with them. I often make the point to those who believe in free enterprise and the like that we do need a strong Public Service to make sure that other parts of our nation can thrive. If we compare our public service—whilst there is a lot of bashing of it, I acknowledge—to so many around the world I think we are very well served. What helps to give confidence to business and to the community is that we have a really professional and hardworking public service.

I'd like to congratulate Cromwell for the new building. This is very much a partnership between the Australian government and Cromwell, working with the private sector to deliver this great building. I'd like to acknowledge Paul Weightman, the CEO of Cromwell; Michael Wilde; Jodie Clarke; and all of the other Cromwell representatives. I'd like to thank our new secretary and take this opportunity to acknowledge Kathryn Campbell in her new role as the head of DSS. I think Kathryn's an outstanding public servant, and I think she will make an outstanding contribution to this very important portfolio.

I would, in passing, mention Finn Pratt, who has moved on to another very important area of policy. I think he is in the energy space now, which is very topical, but he did a great job for DSS, and I want to thank him for his service as well. There are a couple of other people from DSS who worked on the building to thank—Janean Richards, Scott Dilley and Lyn Murphy in particular, but there are a number who helped to bring it to fruition.

Finally, last Tuesday, 10 October, I had the great privilege to make an announcement prior to the World Cup qualifying match between the Socceroos and Syria in Sydney. I was proud to announce the allocation by the coalition government of $100,000 to support the establishment of the Football Federation Australia multicultural settlement program. The Australian government and Football Federation Australia have partnered to help young new arrivals settle into Australian life. This funding will help provide a safe and welcoming space for boys and girls of all abilities to play modified football games, delivering a fun, engaging and structured football experience. The fantastic program will create opportunities for people of many diverse cultural backgrounds to come together as well as connecting with other migrants and the mainstream community. The program will also help to enhance the children's physical and mental health through sports and weekly physical activity as well as enabling them to make friends and build links with mentors. I'd like to make special acknowledgement of Mark Falvo and Ricardo Piccioni from FFA and of Violet Roumeliotis and Peter Zographakis from SSI, who are partnering with the FFA in this endeavour.

I think that we should be very proud of the settlement programs we have in this country. There is often a lot of discussion and criticism from some quarters of our border protection policies. We stand by those because they are absolutely critical to ensuring we have integrity in our migration program, but the flip side of that is that what that strong program enables us to do—and we do it, I believe, better than any country on earth—is to go to refugee camps all over the world and to bring in some of the most vulnerable people on earth. Next year it will be over 18,000, the highest in the world in terms of resettlement per capita. If you talk to many experts, including many in the UN who have commented on this and people like Paris Aristotle, they say that our settlement programs are the best in the world. Certainly that is a view I share. It is something that we are continually trying to build on. We've had a series of reforms in recent times to streamline it and to further improve so we get better employment outcomes, better education outcomes and better English language outcomes. I'd like to thank the FFA, because this is just another way of doing it. We are leveraging the world game to help settle newly arrived refugees.

I thank Josh Auld, who is an intern in my office, for assistance with this speech.

I rise to talk about the town of Katherine in the Northern Territory. It's a community three hours south of Darwin when you travel by car. It captures the great Katherine region with the rivers on both sides—the Roper, the Katherine itself and the Vic River. It is beautiful country.

Unfortunately, the town is seriously impacted by chemical contamination of its water supply. RAAF Base Tindal is right next door to Katherine, and the Tindal air base is well utilised in terms of the domestic flights in and out of Katherine; it's not just for RAAF purposes. The base was opened in 1989 and has certainly been an economic boon to the town. The many families from RAAF Tindal, not just now but previously, have been very much involved with the growth of the region, and no doubt some of them have made it home for much longer than they ever envisaged. It's also a place with very strong agricultural industries, but Defence is a major and certainly very welcome presence in the region.

The problem is that, unknown to people of Katherine and certainly to RAAF Base Tindal, the water was being slowly polluted. The reason? A firefighting foam used on Defence bases such as Tindal by aviation fire crews. This foam is contained in a group of chemicals, the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS for short. It is an acronym sadly now very familiar to just about every family in Katherine.

Sampling by Defence has found concentrated levels of PFAS in the Tindal aquifer, which has required further investigation, and a report will be completed in the new year, around April. That is way too long for many residents, and I will continue to ask questions about that time frame.

There is global concern about the chemicals, because they do not degrade in the natural environment. These chemicals are known as 'emerging contaminants', and their specific impact on the environment and humans is still being investigated. The primary exposure pathway for humans is from drinking the water. Other exposure routes can include eating foodstuffs produced from impacted land and water systems, like fish, poultry, meat and vegies. Katherine's bores, drinking supply and local pool are contaminated with traces of PFAS. Compulsory water conservation measures are imposed already in an effort to minimise the amount of PFAS in the water supply. That took place, with the Northern Territory government calling on Katherine residents to reduce and be conservative about their use of water. When you think about a place like Katherine in the wet season, when we have tremendous amounts of rain coming through, to now have water restrictions, the mind boggles. When I was in Katherine last week and listened to residents and families express concern and ask many questions, that was a constant issue that was raised. People just couldn't believe that they have to have water restrictions in an area that is so full of water.

Certainly, the Katherine community is doing a great job keeping water use down and ensuring they do not use bore water in the town water supply. But more than 50 Katherine households—this is in the rural area—have been told not to drink their water supply due to PFAS contamination originating from RAAF Base Tindal. The Defence department trucks in water each week to these 50 properties, because they must have the water bottles. I think it is important for the Senate to understand the seriousness of what is taking place in the north.

With temperatures starting to reach 40 degrees, the local pool has also closed because of PFAS contamination. Have a think about that. Your local pool has closed. We're always conscious of the rivers anyway because of the crocodiles in the area. There is something going on in Katherine that I urge this Senate to be asking more questions about. It's certainly a very serious situation for any town to be in. It's important that this government be completely on top of this situation and that it gives absolute reassurance to the residents of the Katherine region about what is going on, especially given that there have been similar experiences in other parts of the country about this very issue—PFAS—with contaminations in the Queensland town of Oakey and the New South Wales town of Williamtown. This is not new. However, the mistakes that should have been learned from Queensland and from New South Wales are perhaps mistakes that may have just been repeated in the Northern Territory.

Again, I will be asking many questions to understand why our area was not informed much sooner. It seems that very few lessons have been learned about how to engage with the community dealing with the contaminated water supply. There are certainly big questions this government still has to answer from the Katherine community about the contamination. When did Defence first become aware of PFAS in Katherine's water? Was there a delay? Who is responsible?

The residents of Katherine have continually received mixed messages from this government. One week they're telling residents the water is safe to drink, and the next they're bringing in a water treatment plant to reduce the amount of PFAS in the town water supply. Where did this water treatment plant come from? It came from the United States. It took many weeks, if not months, to get here. While long-term solutions may certainly be worked on with this water treatment plant in place, it's there to reduce the amount of PFAS in the Katherine town water supply and it's expected to treat, once it's up and running—it's not working yet; they're still to put this in, and the expectation is that it should be November. So this water treatment plant that's come all the way from the United States and is being put together by the Katherine River is expected to treat one million litres of groundwater per day—yes, a lot, hey—to try to reduce the PFAS.

There is no nationally consistent approach to the management of PFAS contamination around the country, leaving the Katherine community in limbo until Defence completes its epidemiological study early next year. That is totally unacceptable. Katherine residents are rightly asking for access to the same services provided to residents in Williamtown and in Oakey. But we can't get it. We're not receiving it. If the situation in Katherine is at the point where a water treatment plant had to be rushed in from the United States and a local swimming pool closed, it is time for the federal government to implement blood tests so the residents of Katherine can check just how far the PFAS contamination has gone within their own health system.

This government should be adopting Labor's PFAS response in its entirety, including clear and coordinated communication with the community, a nationally consistent approach to the management of PFAS contamination around the country and blood tests for communities affected by PFAS contamination around Defence sites. Even the families at RAAF Base Tindal are very concerned. They need to be reassured that their families are okay. The residents of Katherine and Tindal deserve more from this very haphazard and certainly unresponsive government.

Last Wednesday was the International Day of the Girl Child. On this day we should consider the progress humanity has made in recognising the rights of children, and girls especially; however, there is still a monumental amount of progress that must be made before equality can even be glimpsed.

Today I am hosting 18-year-old Ella Gillespie in celebration of International Day of the Girl Child and to support women's representation in politics. Ella is shadowing me throughout the day to gain an insight into political life. I would like to thank her for her work in preparing this speech for me today. She is one of 17 women here and more than 1,000 young women worldwide who have participated in the Girls Takeover event run by Plan International. This is an important event providing an emphatic statement of support for young women's power and potential.

Today, the report She can lead: young people in Australia share their views on women in politics and leadership by Plan International has been released. Capturing the views of Australian girls aged 10 to 25, the report examines how they see the inequality around them, their experience of it and the effect of this on their ambitions. Many of the findings are shocking. The main element of the report is that urgent action needs to be taken to show young women that there is space for them at the leadership table, be it in politics or the private sector.

Today I will highlight a few of the main findings and the three recommendations that came from Plan International's report, and I implore you to consider the impact you, as senators, have on young women and what more you can do to ensure that their full potential is realised. Currently, less than a third of seats in the Australian parliament are held by women. According to Plan International, the women that are represented, from politics to the boardroom, are paid less, talked over and scrutinised on everything from what they wear to whether or not they have children. The report highlighted the harsh reality that it is more difficult for women to get into power and that, once they achieve leadership positions, they are often subjected to sexist attitudes. It is widely recognised that young people are more likely to believe they can excel into a position of power after seeing a previous holder who identifies as part of their same community. Currently this is not happening, with Plan International reporting that one in three young women identified their gender as the primary barrier stopping them from achieving a leadership position. We must do more to attract young women to parliament and into leadership positions across Australia and to promote fairer treatment once they've reached those positions of power so that the next generation expects and demands equal representation.

Young people should not have to face the same challenges that some of the women in this chamber have faced in our attempts to achieve our goals. I believe we can make substantial change to stop this. Plan International found that girls' leadership aspirations diminish as they become older. More than two-thirds of 15- to 17-year-olds aspire to be leaders, compared to only half of 22- to 25-year-olds. Men's leadership aspirations did not decline at the same rate. Additionally, the report found that, although men and women both believe women are just as good leaders as men, women are less optimistic about their ability to become a leader and women are less likely to become leaders. The report recommends that action must be taken at the pivotal late-high-school age to encourage women to continue to aspire to leadership positions, just as we are doing here today. For example, internships for high-school-aged women could be hosted by parliamentarians and business leaders. Male and female leaders both have a part to play in offering these internships. These should be created with the idea of fostering community engagement and nurturing girls' leadership ambitions. Additionally, it is recommended that state and territory governments invest in women's leadership programs and provide incentives and targets for schools to promote a gender-equality focus. This should be done through staff training, curriculums, school based leadership programs and youth-led ideas.

Once women have secured leadership positions, family commitments must also be accommodated, allowing women to continue to succeed. The desire to start a family was listed as the second-most-dominant barrier to political leadership. We, as the parliament, must do more to ensure that no-one is limited by their choice to start or not to start a family. The outdated stereotypes and other views that confine women's ambitions need to be quashed. One recommendation put forward by the report was to extend flexible working arrangements in parliament and the wider community to allow parents to better manage work and family commitments. Additionally, Plan suggested that political parties should formally adopt a gender-equality strategy that recognises the specific needs and challenges faced by women and girls. While these are ambitious recommendations, it highlights the need for action—something which can be done within these walls to further advance women's leadership and their rights.

The failure to achieve a gender-equal parliament is disappointing, and action is required before the next election. The report found that, to encourage more women to enter politics, we must make it easier by ensuring they are treated fairly by the media and not judged on their looks over their abilities. The report recommends that the federal government work with the media industry to develop robust rules on sexist reporting. These would include banning commentary that disproportionately focuses on women's fashion choices, family life or other areas where men aren't as commonly scrutinised. Additionally, despite the report finding that women and men alike did not support the implementation of quotas for members of parliament, parties should put in place measures to encourage more women to stand for election.

The progress that we have made, while it is progress, has not gone far enough. Plan International's report shows us that there are still girls and young women who are not able to achieve their aspirations because of their gender, and this is unacceptable.

As parliamentarians, we must be willing to lead the change, making it easier for the next generation to forge their way and to shape Australia. We must champion the rights of our girls for our world and our future, whether this is following the Plan International report's recommendations for institutional changes or individual action that needs to be taken to achieve a gender-equal election. That is because girls belong in this place. They belong in the boardroom, on the construction site, in the design studio, in the classroom and in the corridors of parliaments. They belong in this place.

For the young women of Australia, I wish to leave you with this final message, which comes from Plan International's intern 18-year-old Ella, who's walking a mile in my shoes today as part of the Girls Take Over Parliament event. Her message to you is this: never let anyone make you feel like you are less than you are. You are strong, powerful and assertive. It will take time to feel comfortable in your own skin, but be proud of your mind and your body. Be curious and eager to learn. Push yourself and strive for excellence. Women like me and my colleagues in this place have begun to forge the way, creating the groundwork for you to follow, but we're not there yet. It will not be easy to reach your goals, but you are stronger than you think. Be optimistic for the future because it is changing, and we have yet to see the best.

Thank you, Ella.

I'll also commend Ella and Senator Kakoschke-Moore on that very strong and timely message about the future composition of this place. I think that was a very important message to hear.

I myself am here to talk about Tasmania. I might be a little bit Tasmania-centric, but I suppose that's what I'm paid to do! As I am a proud product of the University of Tasmania, along with many other past and present colleagues from Tasmania who attended the University of Tasmania, that's my topic today. It's something I'm proud of, as is the work they do, not only in Tasmania and nationally but also internationally. So I'm going to take this opportunity to talk up some of the fine achievements of that institution.

The University of Tasmania is a relatively old institution. It's been around since 1890, so it's been a very big part of my home state's history. In Tasmania, it has a very recognisable brand. The university has invested heavily in promoting itself and the work it does. Many of us would know that universities around the country often go about their work very quietly, without much fanfare, but the university has made a real thing of promoting the good work it does in an effort to encourage more people to participate in the work it does in its delivery of higher education and its future research projects as well.

In establishing in my contribution today how successful the university has been, I had a look at the University of Tasmania website to satisfy myself of the status that the university has when benchmarked against other universities. On its web page it has a site allocated to rankings. The website says:

The University of Tasmania has continued its sustained climb in high profile international rankings systems this year, confirming its place amongst the best universities in the world.

In the prestigious Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the University of Tasmania jumped 13 places to be rated 292nd internationally. This places the University in the top 2% of universities world-wide and reaffirms its reputation as a premier research institution.

I'll touch on the quality of the research undertaken at what is a relatively small university a little later on. The web page goes on to say:

The QS World University Rankings result of 370 is another leap forward for the University, climbing 7 places and ranking amongst the best in the world for Earth and Marine Sciences and Agriculture and Forestry. Another seven disciplines were highly ranked in the QS Rankings, including Art and Design, Environmental Sciences, Law, Sociology, Education, Medicine and Biological Sciences.

So that's a bit of a demonstration of how this small university from our small state is doing well amongst bigger and better resourced competitors from across the country but also across the globe. So it is something definitely to be proud of, being a Tasmanian.

The benefits that Tasmania gets from the university can't be underestimated in terms of the social, educational and cultural outputs that it delivers, and it has a large footprint right across the state. It's also one of the largest employers in our state, and it accounts for two per cent of the state's gross state product. The economic contribution from the university is estimated to be around $1.7 billion annually.

The University of Tasmania is a university that has a number of campuses across the state. Tasmania's population is very regionally dispersed; there are more people living outside the capital city than in it. In recent years the university has made significant attempts to cater to that dispersed population, so we now have a number of regional campuses as well. As a result, we are seeing graduates from each of those campuses being employed in their home communities, outside of the capital, which is a good outcome.

Higher education is a key segment of our local economy. Indeed, it is one of the top exports from our state. On last reports, international students at the University of Tasmania contributed around $200 million to the state economy. But it's also important to note that each student who moves to Tasmania—those who come from the mainland to study in Tasmania and the international students I just referred to—bring more than just the fees they pay. They pay for accommodation. They eat and drink. They participate in local activities. They bring their families to visit. They participate in our economy in a significant way and generate a great deal of economic activity, which can't be underestimated. It's important to point out that there is room for further growth in this part of the economy. We are seeing from many parts of Asia, and other parts of the globe as well, an increased demand and interest being registered in attending the University of Tasmania, and I know that the Tasmanian state government is working very hard to develop a plan to grow the international education exports from our state.

I mentioned earlier that the research outputs from the university are amongst some of the world's best. We have a $200 million world-class industry research program at the university which capitalises on local industry sectors, including agriculture and aquaculture, forestry and health. There are world leaders in areas such as geology, geography and other such disciplines. There are many academics around the world quoting from papers written by academics from the University of Tasmania, many of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting myself.

Tasmania has an increasing need to grow its economy in the regions. I mentioned before the regional campuses of the University of Tasmania. A key challenge in regional Tasmania is how to encourage particularly the younger members of our community to go on and do things beyond their compulsory education. Only in recent years have we seen high schools extended to year 12. We are the last state or territory in the country to make the education system that way.

If I look back to those who completed year 12 at my school, Marist Regional College in Burnie, very few went on to university or any other sort of higher education, and many struggled to find employment. So, the University of Tasmania's opening up of its regional campuses, including the Cradle Coast campus, which is based at Burnie on the north-west coast, is one of the ways that the university is reaching into these regional communities and making a concerted effort to engage with the part of the community that could benefit. My mother has only recently completed her PhD at that campus, so it is generating results and benefiting many in the community, particularly in regional Tasmania. It is also having an impact in smaller regional communities on breaking the stigma attached to higher education—that university is for people from big cities, not for people who live in small communities—and I commend the university for their commitment in trying to address that stigma.

The economic activity and support that the university provides to my state is also encapsulated in the amazing number of capital works projects that are being undertaken right across our state. We have in recent years seen the construction of the Menzies Institute for Medical Research, the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, down on the Hobart waterfront, and also the restoration of Domain House. The new, amazing-looking student accommodation facility in downtown Hobart also is an incredible addition to the construction works that have been undertaken in Hobart. Having spent a lot of time in that city, in Tasmania, you only have to look at the number of cranes on the skyline to see what the university is doing for jobs in our state. But it doesn't stop there. There are several works in the pipeline, including the relocation of the Launceston campus of the university, which is moving from the fringes of the city to closer to the centre as part of the Launceston City Deal, which is worth approximately $280 million to the local economy and will help the city integrate better with the university. A point made to me by the outgoing Vice-Chancellor, Peter Rathjen, was that like many university campuses in the UK, for instance, university campuses need to be porous so that communities can integrate and become part of the fabric of that society.

On that, to Peter Rathjen, the outgoing Vice Chancellor, I would like to take this opportunity to commend him. Our loss is the University of Adelaide's gain. Peter Rathjen has done a lot to not only grow the university, expand its works and assist students in its classrooms and lecture theatres but also to break down the barriers that I mentioned before. All of these reforms and all of this growth have been as a result of his vision, supported by an excellent executive team—a team who were here in the parliament last night. There aren't many occasions where you can get every single member and senator from Tasmania in one room, unless it is a joint sitting of the houses of parliament. But Peter Rathjen can muster all of us together because, across all party lines, we all support this institution and what it has done for our state. I commend him and his team at the university.

I am very pleased, during my time here in the parliament, to have a role assisting the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, in her work as shadow minister for mental health. In this capacity, last week, as you know, Deputy President Sterle, I was fortunate enough to spend some time in your state of Western Australia inspecting the suicide prevention trial sites.

Labor is committed to continue working with the Turnbull government in bipartisanship to reduce the rate of suicide in Australia. During the 2016 election it was only the Labor Party that announced a target of a 50 per cent reduction in suicides over the next 10 years. We also committed to rolling out 10 suicide prevention trial sites, as advised by the chair of the National Mental Health Commission. I am extremely pleased to say that the government did adopt that set of recommendations, followed our lead, and those trials have proceeded.

There are, in fact, 12 suicide prevention trial sites to be rolled out across Australia, and that includes three sites in Western Australia. As a New South Wales senator, of course, I wish this was not the case in any state of Australia, but my remarks today are particularly about the need that is in Western Australia. I am extremely sad the need is there. We are seeing three suicide prevention trial sites in Western Australia in response to a level of suicide that is untenable: 371 deaths in 2016. The impact of a suicide on the loved ones who are left behind is a major concern. We must give careful thought to how we support the parents, siblings and friends who are left behind to deal with the trauma, profound grief and loss. Our best strategic action to ensure that must be suicide prevention.

Sadly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are approximately twice as likely to die by suicide as non-Indigenous Australians. In the Kimberley, the State Coroner is, in fact, examining 13 deaths of, mostly, young Aboriginal people in recent years, five of whom were under the age of 13. We need to make the change that is necessary to prevent these sorts of tragedies. We need to do more to reduce the stigma around mental health and suicide, particularly among young people and our first peoples. We must act on an evidence base that is sound, and we need action, not continuing conversation, about awareness raising. Surely the purpose of these 12 trials is to do more than raise awareness. The statistics are a call to action, carefully considered, culturally appropriate and geographically relevant action. We need to intervene early, we need to continue to enact preventive measures, and we need to build resilience in individuals and in communities.

I wanted to make a comment about hope and how powerful it is. It is a good thing. Good people on the ground are doing their best with the resources that they have at hand. I visited the suicide prevention trial sites of South Perth and the Kimberley. I met with mental health service providers and community leaders in both of these regions who are participating in the suicide prevention trial sites. I would really like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the very important work they do in both of those regions of Australia. I am continually inspired by the efforts of hardworking Australians. I was moved, and I especially thank them for their generosity in sharing with me their stories of hardship, strength and resilience. I would like to thank Madeleine King, the member for Brand, and you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, for showing me around the local area, your backyard, the great state of Western Australia.

Now I want to talk about the purpose of my visit. Western Australia is to see firsthand how the Turnbull government is spending the $3 million allocated to each of the suicide prevention sites. Having recently returned, I have to say that I am not filled with confidence that the money is being spent properly. It really does appear that the Turnbull government is well behind on much of the preparatory work that is required. The 12 suicide prevention trial sites are now one year into the proposed three-year trial, and money is being spent, but no-one was able to show or explain exactly what the overarching evidence based strategy was. And we know that doing more of the same is not the change that is needed for these communities or, indeed, for any of the communities across this great country. Doing more of the same is not a trial. It doesn't meet the expectations of what has been offered with the declaration of 12 suicide prevention trial sites.

For some of these 12 sites, locations have only now been confirmed and groups of interest only now decided. Delay and inaction, sadly, are the hallmarks of this dysfunctional government. Let's take the South Perth site as an example. Despite the great work of local people there, on the ground the information I was able to access indicates that the rollout is at the very least six months behind. There is no project officer at the moment. It was only recently advertised on Seek. That is where we found out that the trial was actually underway, because information is so hard to come by about what is actually going on. Again, I reiterate that we are now more than one year into the three-year trial, but the Turnbull government doesn't seem to be getting on with the job in an orderly or transparent way or even strategic way. This most important work must be done properly. We can never forget that the cost of inaction in suicide prevention is the loss of life. One death by suicide is too many.

I would like to share a sad and very confronting story that was shared with me in the course of my visit. A couple of people spoke about the experience they had of responding to a suicide attempt. Clearly, the trauma that they experienced was manifest in the way that they spoke to me about their response. It was a young girl, similar to the age that I described before, in her early teens, being considered by the coroner. The tragedy of the story is that the intervention that saved her life was followed by a trip to a hospital and then a very rapid discharge the next day with no support around that young person. This is not the only story that is being told across this country. Families are in despair at a lack of access to proper services.

The Turnbull government has indicated and given the community a sense of care about this issue. They have even instituted 12 sites where $3 million is being spent. That is an act of hope and it is one that the community wants, but it has to be delivered properly. I can certainly report to the Senate that, on the basis of my recent visit, that is not the case at this point of time. My sincere hope is that there will be some significant change to the way in which this project is being managed. The Turnbull government needs to get on with this job properly, and to give suicide the proper attention that it deserves.

For those who might be listening or those who are here today who are in any way concerned or feel unwell in terms of their mental health, I encourage you to access one of the 24/7 crisis support lines: Google Lifeline, Suicide Call Back Service, beyondblue, Kids Helpline or MensLine Australia. I will just offer one number in the time that's provided, 131114, if you feel you need to talk to somebody right now.

It being 2 pm, we will proceed to questions without notice.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday the minister claimed that households would see a reduction in their power prices of between $110 and $115 per year over the 2020 to 2030 period. Last night, the chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, told Lateline, 'I don't think anybody can guarantee a price reduction.' Given the chair of the board that devised this policy refused to guarantee a price reduction, how can any Australian trust the minister's guarantee of a price reduction?

Thank you very much indeed, Senator Gallacher. I actually watched Kerry Schott's interview on Lateline, which you obviously did not. I'll tell you what she said, Senator Gallacher. Let me read to you from her transcript. She said:

The guarantee is about providing a reliable power system and meeting the emissions targets set in the Paris agreement.

What will happen when those mechanisms are put in place is that prices are likely to come down and they're likely to keep coming down.

That is what Dr Kerry Schott told Lateline last night. That is Dr Kerry Schott, the Chair of the Energy Security Board, who is in a better position than virtually any other authority in Australia to be able to make that prediction. What Dr Schott and the other members of the Energy Security Board, on whose advice the Turnbull government has acted—including Mr Pierce, the Chairman of the Australian Energy Market Commission; Audrey Zibelman, the CEO of AEMO; and Paula Conboy, the chair of AER—have all advised the government is that the most likely range of decrease in electricity prices will be in the range of $110 to $115 per annum as a result of the government's National Energy Guarantee. That doesn't, by the way, include the downward pressure on electricity prices from other measures that the Turnbull government has also taken, including, for example, its negotiation with the gas producers, its negotiations with the electricity retailers and its abolition of the limited merits review to prevent the operators gaming the system, all of which will have a downward impact on prices. (Time expired)

Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question.

Another member of the Energy Security Board, Mr Pierce, has revealed that Australians will have to wait three years to be even 50c a week better off. Is this the minister's guarantee to Australians struggling with the cost of living—a 50c-per-week saving in three years time?

Senator Gallacher, I also heard Dr Pierce's interview, and that's not what he said either, and I noted you weren't quoting him in direct speech. You may take it that Dr Pierce's view is the view that he expressed in his advice to the government, which is the figure contained in the National Energy Guarantee policy document released by the Prime Minister yesterday, and that is that the best estimate of those experts—the people best placed to know the operation of the Australian energy market and the people best acquainted with its operation—is that electricity price reductions for the average household as a result of the government's National Energy Guarantee will be in the range of $110 to $115 per year. That is their advice to the government, and it is that advice, that expert advice, on which the government has acted.

My final supplementary question is: given that the Liberal-National government has failed to deliver its promised $500 reduction in power prices and that Ms Scott has refused to guarantee a reduction in power prices, isn't it clear that guarantees from the minister and Mr Turnbull count for nothing for Australians struggling with the cost of electricity?

For heaven's sake, Senator Gallacher, if you can't even get the name of the person right, I don't think you're the right person to be asking this question. You're referring to Dr Kerry Schott, the chairman of the Energy Security Board. What Dr Kerry Schott has said, as I indicated to you, is that the range of reduction for the average household, as a direct result of the National Energy Guarantee, will be in the range of $110 to $115 per annum. I can also tell you that the largest decrease in electricity prices Australia has ever recorded was recorded in 2014 after the abolition of the carbon tax, so the prediction that the coalition made at the 2013 election about the effect of the abolition of the carbon tax turned out to be correct.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Noting the reports of the liberation of Raqqa in Syria from Daesh control overnight, could the minister update the Senate on the progress being made against Daesh in Syria?

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. Australia does indeed welcome the reports that the Syrian Democratic Forces, with the support of the international counter-Daesh coalition, have retaken the key city of Raqqa in Syria. The international coalition understands that while the majority of the city has been liberated there are isolated pockets of stiff resistance remaining and that areas of the city still remain unsafe for civilians to return home.

This is important progress. Raqqa was Daesh's self-proclaimed capital of their so-called caliphate and was central to their narrative of legitimacy and success. The actions of Daesh in Raqqa, as well as numerous other parts of Syria and Iraq, have been appalling. They use oppression and brutality to rule their territories. When local forces came to fight Daesh, Daesh responded through vicious tactics: using civilians as human shields, murdering civilians for attempting to escape and indiscriminately using improvised explosive devices throughout the city. The efforts of the SDF in Raqqa are a devastating blow against Daesh and their ideology. A total victory in Raqqa will discredit Daesh worldwide and assist in coalition and international efforts to prevent the radicalisation of vulnerable youth elsewhere.

These have been tough battles. Many Syrians have lost their lives fighting terrorists during these operations, and our thoughts are with their families. The Syrian Democratic Forces are also to be commended for their determination to defeat Daesh in Raqqa, and we acknowledge their losses also. After this fighting, the stabilisation efforts in Raqqa will take some time. The re-establishment of both institutions and essential services is critical to ensuring that residents are able to begin to return and rebuild their lives.

Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.

Could the minister provide an update on the progress being made against Daesh in Iraq and the contribution of the Australian Defence Force to the capacity of the Iraq security forces?

The vital liberations of Mosul on 9 July, of Tal Afar at the end of August and of Hawija at the beginning of October represent the beginning of the end of the entity that is Daesh in Iraq. Iraqi forces are moving towards the Euphrates River Valley to clear Daesh from final strongholds inside Iraq. Some of these Daesh strongholds in the river valley are in difficult terrain and present different tactical problems from the urban fighting so far experienced in those towns and cities that I've mentioned here, and earlier, in this chamber.

Australia will continue to support Iraq and its security forces so that Iraq is able to defeat Daesh, keep its people safe and maintain territorial sovereignty. We continue to train, advise and assist the ISF through training at Task Group Taji, our special operations advisers and air support through our Air Task Group. I acknowledge those men and women of the ADF who continue to serve in this role and the contribution they make.

Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on how the government is helping to combat the spread of terrorism to the Indo-Pacific region?

This is a very important aspect of this challenge. As Daesh continues to be defeated in the Middle East, we see that foreign fighters will continue to return to our region. We're committed to working with our regional partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific to prevent that Daesh-inspired terrorism from gaining a foothold here. So, since June, Australia's been providing our Orion surveillance support to the Philippines following the seizure of Marawi by Daesh-aligned terrorists. I do welcome the announcement this week by my counterpart in the Philippines, Secretary of National Defense Lorenzana, that the city of Marawi is liberated, and I look forward to meeting him in the Philippines next week for the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus.

It's been a very difficult fight over the past five months and very challenging for the Philippines armed forces. The terrorists' actions have disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and destroyed a once thriving town. Our support to the Philippines represents Australia's commitment to working with our regional partners to address these terrorism challenges. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday, the minister assured the Senate that, even with the Turnbull government's latest energy policy, 'the mix of renewables is up to 36 per cent by 2030'. What is the assumed annual growth in large-scale solar generation under the government's modelling?

I don't have the disaggregated figures, but, as I say, the estimated proportion of the energy mix represented by renewable energy by 2030 will be up to 36 per cent. Of that 36 per cent, the intermittent component, comprising wind and solar, will be up to 24 per cent. I don't have a disaggregation between wind and solar, but I can get back to you in relation to that. But, Senator, having responded as well as I'm able, the reason that the government has adopted this suite of policies—as you know, on the advice of the Energy Security Board, the experts best acquainted with the operation of the Australian energy market—is to serve the objective of lowering energy prices for Australian households. That is what they have advised us this will do.

But we're also mindful of other policy objectives, and there are two I want to take the opportunity of your question to mention. One, of course, of the other policy objectives is to ensure reliability of supply. We are not going to make the catastrophic error that the South Australian government made of including such a high proportion of renewables and, particularly, intermittent power sources in the energy mix that the system could not cope with it, resulting in the blackout we saw in South Australia last year. The other policy objective we intend to serve, and will serve by these policies, is to maintain our commitment to the Paris targets. That means, as you've observed, Senator Chisholm, in the premise of your question, that the proportion of renewable energy, including intermittent sources, will increase under the National Energy Guarantee, but it won't increase so rapidly that there isn't sufficient redundancy in the system to prevent blackouts.

Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?

What is the assumed growth in wind power under the government's modelling?

That's essentially the same question you asked me before. As I said to you, I don't have a disaggregation between wind and solar, but what I can tell you is that the assumed proportion of the energy mix represented by intermittent power sources will be up to 24 per cent.

Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?

Was the Liberal party room provided a copy of the modelling when considering the impact of the Turnbull government's latest energy policy yesterday? If not, why not?

Senator Chisholm, what I can tell you is that the Liberal party room yesterday was treated to a very, very extensive presentation by the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, and a briefing by Mr John Pierce and Ms Audrey Zibelman, the CEO of AEMO. We had a long discussion. It was a discussion, if my memory serves me correctly, that went for almost 2½ hours, in which all of the different aspects of this policy—the premises; the projections; the estimates; and the assessment of, in particular, the experts, Audrey Zibelman and John Pierce—were explored by many of my colleagues. As a result of that, I'm delighted to say the policy was adopted by acclamation by the government party room.

My question is to Senator 'Brand-arse', representing the Prime Minister.

Government senators interjecting—

Sorry, 'Brandis'. That's just how I pronounce it, Mr President.

Your question, Senator Whish-Wilson?

A key criticism of the National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, is that emissions guarantee is not linked directly to the absolute emissions needed to meet our Paris targets. I note that a long-term emissions reduction pathway is recommended by the Finkel report. The government has not provided any detail on the actual reduction in emissions that will occur in the electricity sector due to the National Energy Guarantee other than saying it will be in line with Australia's Paris targets, which you have said today. Can the minister inform the chamber specifically of the year-by-year reductions that will be required within the electricity sector to meet this target? If not, why, after five years of energy policy chaos and uncertainty, has this not been modelled and already established?

The position is precisely as I indicated. The National Energy Guarantee has been designed to ensure that Australia does meet its Paris targets. As you know, Australia has committed to a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 which, as you should also know, represents one of the most ambitious per capita emissions reduction targets of any country in the world. The advice the government has received from the Energy Security Board—Dr Schott, Ms Savage, Mr Pierce, Audrey Zibelman, Paula Conboy, the five people who have more expertise in this field than any other five people in this country—

Poor old Dr Finkel!

is that the scheme they have designed, which the Prime Minister announced yesterday, will result in that very outcome. I will take that interjection, Senator Wong.

A point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson?

A point of order on relevance, Mr President. I was very clear. I asked what the year-by-year reductions would be to meet our Paris agreements and I asked the minister to explain, if he doesn't have that answer, why he doesn't have that answer after five years of energy policy chaos and uncertainty.

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.

Senator Whish-Wilson, that's what I'm able to tell you. I'm able to tell you that this model has been designed in order to meet the Paris targets, and it will meet the Paris target.

Senator Wong, you interjected before, 'Poor old Dr Finkel'. This is what poor old Dr Finkel, as you patronisingly called that gentleman, Senator Wong, had to say yesterday:

What we now have, and for the first time, is a strategy … We've previously had some tactical responses, we've had some policies to try and bring all these together—

Senator Whish-Wilson, a point of order?

An additional point of order on relevance. Perhaps I could suggest something a little bit different: that Senator Brandis defer to Senator Birmingham if he doesn't know the answer to that question.

That's a matter for the Attorney-General. In addressing the point of order, the Attorney-General did remark that he was giving you the commitment to the Paris Agreement in his previous answer. But, yes, I do take the point that he is now addressing Senator Wong. I would remind the Attorney-General to address the question and not the interjection.

I'm taking the interjection, as I think I'm at liberty to do. Dr Finkel went on to say: 'What we have now, and for the first time, is strategy. We've previously had some tactical responses, we've had some policies, but by bringing all of these together we're finally taking Australia's energy future, backed up by gas and other elements of the electricity system, into a strategic zone and that's a great thing to see.' We welcome Dr Finkel's endorsement.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.

Mr President, none of us enjoy seeing your rulings being ignored. , as part of the Paris Agreement, next year the world will begin assessing progress towards the Paris target and start discussion around increasing the ambition of every nation's targets. This is called the ratchet effect. It has been reported this morning that the Turnbull government has essentially set a cap on its current Paris target of 26 to 28 per cent by this policy. Is this true? If not, how do you guarantee under the NEG to rapidly increase cuts in our emissions and meet new standards?

Australia's commitment to the Paris targets is as I have outlined to you. I haven't seen the statement made by someone you have referred to this morning. But, as I have indicated to you, the National Energy Guarantee has been designed to enable Australia to meet its Paris targets. As I also said in answer to a question from an opposition senator, by 2030 the estimated proportion of renewables in the system will be up to 36 per cent, which, you would acknowledge, is a significant increase on the percentage of renewables in the system now.

Senator Whish-Wilson, your party and mine have different outcomes. Our objective is to keep electricity prices lower. That is not your objective, and that is a big difference. Unfortunately for the Australian people, you've got the Australian Labor Party chasing you. (Time expired)

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.

David Blowers, in The Conversation today, stated that the National Energy Guarantee is a second-best option and that our previous working carbon price was the best policy option as it avoided the need for a complicated emissions and reliability guarantee. Your Energy Security Board has recommended that carbon credit units and international units could be permitted to meet a proportion of the retailer's guarantee. Minister, have you returned to carbon trading? What proportion of Australian emissions reductions will you allow to be achieved by international carbon credits? (Time expired)

No, that is not the case. If you want to quote third-party commentary on the announcement the Prime Minister made yesterday, might I direct you to the overwhelming weight of the commentary, which has been to support, and indeed applaud, the government's decision. In the Fairfax press, the economics writer Peter Martin celebrates: 'Out of the ashes of failed attempts, finally a chance to put the climate wars behind us.' Similarly in the News Limited press, the distinguished commentator Paul Kelly made the observation in his opinion article this morning that the only people who will object to the policy that the Prime Minister announced yesterday are people on the extreme edges of the debate.

That is a very good position for a government to be in. As I said to you before, Senator Whish-Wilson, our objective, of which we are not ashamed, is to keep electricity prices as low as we can get them.

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government is delivering more affordable and reliable energy for Australian households and industry?

I thank the senator for his question, and I take the liberty of congratulating him on the fine maiden speech that he delivered to the chamber yesterday. The Turnbull government is taking the next step in our comprehensive action to deal with energy affordability in Australia and to guarantee the reliability and security of our energy markets whilst also meeting our emissions reductions obligations. We understand that households and businesses have been doing it tough and are doing it tough. That is why we have a comprehensive range of policies to make sure that energy price pressure is a downwards pressure and downwards movement.

We're powering ahead with our new National Energy Guarantee. As you've heard from Senator Brandis, this is a guarantee that can deliver more affordable, more reliable energy, whilst meeting Australia's international commitments. It will help to drive the right type of investment in Australia's energy market and generation—investment that can mean that every business and every household can have confidence that, when they flick the switch, the power they need is there for them to succeed and operate. It does so, reducing emissions, but without the need for complex subsidies, taxes, trading schemes or new government bureaucracies. It's a technology-neutral approach that will ensure, as you've heard, continued growth in certain renewables but will do so without it being at the expense of dispatchable energy that is essential for success in the market. It builds on the action we have already taken: action to reform retail markets and ensure retailers give consumers the best possible deal; action to reform network and distribution markets to stop those operating the poles and wires from gaming the system to the tune of billions of dollars; action to reform gas markets to drive down the spot price of gas and guarantee that gas is there when required; action to ensure that we have new generation capabilities that are dispatchable, such as pumped hydro coming on stream. (Time expired)

Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on how business and industry have welcomed the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee?

This proposal has been widely welcomed and endorsed. The Grattan Institute has described it as:

… the last piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle of a credible energy and climate change policy for Australia.

BlueScope have welcomed it as delivering 'affordability and reliability', with needs which 'are considered equally', and saying:

We welcome this new approach because it's fair.

The Chief Scientist, who Senator Wong referred to earlier, has described it as 'a credible mechanism' from 'the country's most authoritative voice in energy matters'. AGL has said that it is a serious proposal to address reliability and emissions reductions. Manufacturing Australia, who I would have thought those opposite would care about, have said that it recognises the importance of renewables to reducing emissions but also prioritises affordability, security and a diverse energy mix. That is strong support, which is why those opposite should get on board and recognise that this is the way to deliver affordability and reliability, and meet our international commitments. (Time expired)

Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline how the National Energy Guarantee will meet our international commitments whilst lowering power prices for Australian families and businesses?

Australia's emissions per capita are at their lowest level in 27 years, as indeed they are per GDP. The Turnbull government has committed, as their predecessors did, to strong, credible, responsible targets to reduce emissions by a further 26 to 28 per cent against 2005 levels by 2030. Unlike those opposite, who have an unrealistic and unaffordable 45 per cent target, ours is carefully considered, balanced and calibrated to make sure our economy still continues to grow, whilst making it amongst the greatest and most significant per-capita contributions in the world. The electricity sector represents around 35 per cent of Australia's emissions. That's why it's important that we make sure there is a credible policy, as the National Energy Guarantee is, to ensure electricity reform drives down emissions intensity. But this cannot be at the expense of the reliability of energy, which is why a comprehensive, coordinated mechanism that deals with reliability as well as emissions is so essential, and that's what we're delivering. (Time expired)

My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Adelaide business Plastics Granulating Services closed its doors in June after its annual electricity bill rose from $80,000 to $180,000, with the loss of 35 jobs—just one example of many. The CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, James Pearson, this week said that 'urgent action' was 'needed to prevent job losses and business closures' because 'many Australian businesses and consumers cannot withstand the burden' of high electricity prices.

Given that the government's National Energy Guarantee plan, if properly implemented, will take at least two to three years to deliver benefits, what immediate measures will the government implement to assist businesses and consumers in order to prevent many tens of thousands of jobs being lost in the meantime?

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. As I've just outlined to the Senate, the national electricity guarantee is the next step in a comprehensive range of action that the Turnbull government has already been taking to drive down electricity price pressures across the different parts of what is a complex supply chain.

Senator Xenophon well knows that across the electricity market you have retailers, distributors and wholesalers or generators, all contributing to the different price pressures. That's why our action has been so comprehensive. It is to engage with retailers, alongside the ACCC, and to make sure that consumers, households and businesses get the best possible energy deal, to ensure that people secure from their retailer something that will give them access to an electricity price that is more affordable than what they're currently paying. That's why we are investing in action to deliver better, more reliable energy sources in the future, such as Snowy Hydro.

It is why this chamber, this week, passed our reforms to abolish the limited merits review in relation to network distribution. I'm disappointed that Senator Xenophon was virtually a sole voice in this chamber, seemingly opposing or questioning the abolition of the limited merits review. The Labor Party recognised the benefits of doing so. I welcome their support in doing so.

Point of order, Senator Xenophon.

The question was: 'What immediate measures will the government implement to deal with the impending job losses that the head of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has warned of in the meantime, before these measures take effect?'

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. I think the minister was touching upon a measure that we can regard as being immediate, but I remind the minister of the question.

Thank you, and, Mr President, I had already addressed and outlined measures in relation to retail action and measures in relation to generation, and I was directly dealing with legislation this chamber has passed, action that helps to drive down prices by minimising what is an estimated $6.5 billion that energy networks have gamed the system by, driving up prices for households and businesses. And Senator Xenophon took the side of the energy networks in the debate, rather than the side of households and consumers. That was a remarkable situation to see. Now he comes in here and argues and complains on behalf of business. Well, we cared about business, which is why we have abolished the merits review, and at least the Labor Party supported us in doing so. (Time expired)

Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.

I will ignore that misrepresentation. In terms of carbon emissions, yesterday's announcement only dealt with emissions in the electricity sector, which, the minister acknowledges, only make up one-third of Australia's total emissions. What are the government's plans in respect of emissions reductions in the areas of transport, agriculture and the direct combustion industry generally, including schemes to incentivise and reward the agricultural sector to reduce emissions?

As the Senate well knows and has heard me say before, every time Australia has set an emissions reduction target we have met it and exceeded it. That is what is going to happen in relation to our 2020 target, and we are confident in relation to our 2030 target. Senator Xenophon may not be aware, but on 24 March this year, the Turnbull government released a discussion paper in relation to meeting our 2030 emissions target which looks at the comprehensive areas of emissions activity. Yes, indeed, as Senator Xenophon recognised in an earlier answer, I recognise that around one-third of emissions come from the stationary energy sector and that the National Energy Guarantee, with its emissions guarantee built into it, will ensure that the energy markets play their role in delivering the least cost abatement to meet their share of our emissions reduction targets by 2030. The government already has in place a comprehensive process which will inform further policies to meet the remainder of the 2030 targets.

Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.

In the absence of policies to reduce emissions in the non-electricity generation sector, does the government concede that this may mean that the electricity generation sector will bear a heavier burden in order to meet Australia's international obligations?

No, the government doesn't concede that. The government believes that we have demonstrated in a range of ways over the years capacity for the Australian economy to meet emissions reduction targets, and that will happen once again. As I outlined before, our emissions per capita and per GDP are at their lowest levels in 27 years. We are on track to beat our 2020 target by some 224 million tonnes. The Emissions Reduction Fund, which the government has operated, has secured 189 million tonnes of abatement at just $11.83 per tonne.

We have taken other action in terms of legislating to phase out HFCs which will save millions of tonnes of emissions. We are consulting on vehicle emissions standards and, as I indicated before, we have a comprehensive process in place, sparked with the release of a discussion paper in March of this year, that will inform the remainder of the policies over the period to 2030 to ensure that all relevant parts of the Australian economy contribute to Australia once again meeting and probably once again exceeding emissions reduction targets. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's National Energy Guarantee will improve energy reliability and affordability across regional Australia?

I thank the senator for his question. The availability of reliable and affordable energy is absolutely critical to the success of Australia's regions. If we want to see our regions continue to grow, we need to provide confidence to businesses and families that the lights will stay on and that energy prices will remain affordable. Our regions are enormous contributors to Australia's economic growth. Australia's agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining industries, which are predominantly located in regional Australia, made up more than half of our merchandise exports last year. The gas and electricity that power our capital cities is produced in regional Australia. If we can't keep the lights on in regional Australia, our whole economy will suffer. That's why the National Energy Guarantee is so important.

This government is putting an end to years of energy policy failure and is providing certainty, reliability and affordability in the energy market. Our plan will put downward pressure on power bills and improve reliability by increasing investment in dispatchable energy supply. This will ensure that the local vineyard, the local IGA and the local baker can continue to grow their businesses, employ more people and grow our regions. As I said, people who live in the cities should thank regional Australia every day for their way of life. It will mean that local households can spend less money on electricity and more money out there supporting local businesses in their regions. Our plan will make sure that we can provide reliability and certainty, and we will help power our regions forward.

Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.

Can the minister outline what other action is being taken to improve reliability and to reduce the cost of energy?

The coalition is implementing a range of reforms to improve reliability and to reduce cost. Further to the announcement that we saw yesterday—which was very well received—we have secured an agreement from energy retailers to provide better, clearer and more information for households and businesses. We have secured agreement from gas companies to ensure there is enough gas for Australian consumers before any gas is shipped overseas. We have abolished the limited merits review, which allowed network companies to game the system and push up power bills. We've increased the scrutiny of the energy market with more funding to the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC to ensure that customers get a fair deal. And we have initiated an immediate one-off cash payment to almost four million Australians of $75 for singles and $125 for couples to offset rising power bills for the most vulnerable in our community.

Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister explain what the consequence would be of failing to implement the government's National Energy Guarantee?

Yes, I can. The consequence would be a return to the catastrophic policy uncertainty we saw under Labor. Over the last decade, Labor has adopted more than a dozen energy and climate policies from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the emissions trading scheme, the citizens' assembly through to the carbon tax—we all remember the carbon tax! The then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promised there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'—one of the biggest broken promises that we saw from the Labor Party.

The last time Labor was in office, electricity prices doubled, increasing by 101 per cent. People can pay higher prices under Bill Shorten, who wants $66 billion in higher subsidies and in more subsidies under his emissions reduction target compared to zero under the coalition. Zero! Whether it was Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard doubling energy prices, or Jay Weatherill causing rolling blackouts, Labor cannot be trusted on energy policy. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. In my home state of South Australia this week marks the closure of the Holden car-manufacturing plant, bringing an end to the Australian car-manufacturing era. Yet Australia continues to impose import tariffs on cars which, on those made in Thailand alone, costs car buyers over $320 million a year. The tax burden includes an estimated $1,000 on the Ford Ranger, Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Mazda 2, Mazda CX-3, Honda Civic, Honda Jazz and Honda CR-V and estimated $1,300 on the Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Triton, Holden Colorado and Nissan Navara. With no basis for retaining protections for a non-existent automotive industry, will the government now ease the tax burden on Australian car purchasers and axe these car taxes?

Thank you, Senator Bernardi, for that question. I'm interested to hear Labor senators cheer you on, Senator Bernardi, suggesting that there should be a reduction in taxes in relation to car imports. Let me just say, right up front: the government hasn't got any plans, at present, to change the taxation rate.

A point of order, President: there was nobody on the Labor side who was cheering, Senator Bernardi. We were making the point that this government closed Holden.

There is no point of order.

On this side of the chamber we remember the decisions that were made under Labor.

A point of order: I have never cheered Senator Bernardi in my life.

That is not a point of order either, Senator Cameron.

Let me just say right up front that the government doesn't have any plans at present to reduce the level of taxation that applies to the purchase of cars. Of course, on this side of the chamber, the coalition is always committed to ensuring that the tax burden is as low as possible—as high as necessary, but also as low as possible. We always focus on making sure that taxation arrangements are as efficient as possible, as least distorting on the economy as possible and that they are also fair.

Our priority at the moment, as a government, is to reduce the tax burden on business. Eighty seven per cent of Australians are employed in the private sector. By making sure that our business tax rate is internationally competitive we are able to attract additional investment and we are able to ensure that our economy continues to grow and we are able to ensure that businesses which are more successful can hire more Australians and pay them better wages. So our focus is on making our tax system more growth friendly, so that we can encourage business to be more successful and more profitable so that Australian workers have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. We do not have any plans at present along the lines that Senator Bernardi is asking about.

Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question?

I can confirm that Senator Cameron is internally cheering me on all the time. I'm grateful that the minister has outlined his commitment to lowering taxes for business, but I note that an often used business vehicle is the Toyota LandCruiser, which attracts an estimated $3,000 in import taxes, the type of which are collectively costing Australian car buyers over $650 million this financial year alone. That is over and above the tariff impost that I referred to in my previous question. I ask the minister: will you please review and repeal all taxes on imported motor vehicles?

I believe I've answered the main part of that question. As I've indicated the government doesn't have any plans to change taxation arrangements as they apply to the purchase of motor vehicles.

What I would say is that the government is pursuing and is committed to continuing to pursue a very ambitious free trade agenda. We understand that open markets and free trade help Australian exporting businesses to be more successful in key markets around the world, including in Japan, Korea, China and the like, which is where we've been able the finalise very attractive free trade agreements. Australian consumers are able to get better access at better prices to high-quality products from places like Japan, South Korea and other places around the world. So the government always continues to ensure that—(Time expired).

Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.

Minister, given that your government is the highest taxing government in Australian history, if you truly are committed to providing taxation relief to all Australians, would you offer relief to car buyers from taxes that are now nothing more than a revenue-raising measure?

I reject the premise of the question. If Senator Bernardi is concerned about the levels of taxation in Australia, he should be very concerned about the possibility that Bill Shorten could become Prime Minister of Australia, because the Labor Party have already said that they would get rid of the current cap on tax revenue as a share of GDP. They have already indicated that they would get rid of the speed limit when it comes to revenue raising by government. We have imposed on ourselves a cap of 23.9 per cent on tax revenue as a share of GDP. Labor is proposing to blow that out of the water to impose an extra $150 billion worth of taxes on the Australian economy, which would mean that Australian businesses would be less successful. It would mean there would be less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. If you are concerned about supporting the side of politics that supports lower taxes, I would encourage you to continue to support, with your preferences, the Liberal and National parties. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Can the minister confirm that the Turnbull government's latest energy policy assumes investment in renewable energy will drop from 5,000 megawatts a year currently to 250 megawatts a year, and on what basis do you assume that renewable energy development will fall by 95 per cent?

No, I can't confirm that, and I don't confirm that. What I can confirm is that, as a result of the National Energy Guarantee, prices will fall. The best estimate of the amount by which prices will fall is the estimate of the Energy Security Board, who estimate that the fall in prices to the average household will be between $110 and $115 per annum.

Point of order, Senator Wong?

The question wasn't about prices. The question was about the quantum of investment in renewable energy dropping from 5,000 megawatts a year to 250 megawatts per year. If he can't answer the question, perhaps he can sit down and hand it on to someone who knows the answer.

Thank you, Senator Wong. The minister directly answered the question up-front and, as we have always done, ministers can enhance the answer provided they stay on topic, and the minister is on topic.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. So that is what this policy will result in. It will result in reliable energy supply, it will result in a reduction in the price of electricity supply to the average household of between $110 and $115 per annum, and it will enable Australia to maintain its commitment to its Paris targets. We adopt this policy not on the basis of a political document but on the basis of expert opinion, the expert opinion of the Energy Security Board, the board comprising the people who are better acquainted—

Point of order, Senator Gallagher?

Just on relevance again, the question actually is around the assumptions of renewable energy development falling under the energy plan, not the general vibe of the plan as it exists.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order! Senator Wong, I'm trying to listen to your colleague on her feet.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order, both of you!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! Senator Gallagher, the point of order you raise in relation to direct relevance doesn't hold, because the minister directly answered the question by not just saying he could not confirm but reiterating that he would not confirm the question asked by Senator McAllister. The up-front question was, 'Would you confirm?' He absolutely denied that he would confirm. Then, as is always the practice, ministers can enhance their answer providing they stay on topic, and the minister was on topic. So there is no point of order.

Lest there be any doubt about it, Senator McAllister, I reject the premise of your question, so be in no doubt about that. There is a great difference between the two sides of politics now on energy policy. It is a great difference and it could not be a simpler difference: the government is committed to reducing the price of electricity, and the opposition has no plan whatsoever to do so. In fact, because you have been outmanoeuvred by the Greens, because you are in a competition with the Greens, you are determined to follow their policy to increase the price of electricity to Australian households. That's the big difference between your side of politics and mine. (Time expired)

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Given that households are currently installing 1,000 megawatts of rooftop solar annually and the government plans to cut this to a maximum of 250 megawatts a year, can the minister explain to Australians why the government wants to stop them from installing rooftop solar?

Senator McAllister, I don't know why you would say such a thing, because we have no such intention and the assertion you've made in your question is entirely wrong. It is entirely wrong. The National Energy Guarantee that the government announced yesterday is premised on an expansion of renewable energy—the growth of renewable energy—in the sector.

Senator McAllister, as I was saying to you a moment ago, we have a plan to reduce the price of electricity to Australian households by between $110 and $115 per annum to the average household, signed off on by the Energy Security Board and authored by the most eminent experts in the field in this country, and you have no plan. You have no plan to reduce the price of electricity to Australian households. What you have is a plan to outcompete the Greens on energy policy.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

How many jobs in the renewable energy industry have been sacrificed by the Prime Minister in order to save his own?

None—none whatsoever because, as I said in answer to your earlier question, the National Energy Guarantee is premised on the growth of the renewables sector. It is a policy informed, as I said, by the Energy Security Board, whose appointment, by the way, was welcomed as recently as August of this year by your own shadow minister, Mr Butler, when he congratulated Dr Schott and Clare Savage on their appointment to the board and congratulated the government on such excellent appointments.

The fact is, Senator McAllister, that you don't have a plan and you know you don't have a plan to reduce electricity costs to households and this government does. And you won't have a plan because, as I said before, you are in this competition with the Greens to shore up the inner-city vote, which will guarantee you will not go to the election with a plan to reduce the price of energy. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of reports concerning the intimidation of workers by members of registered organisations?

Unfortunately, Senator Paterson, I am. Yet again, colleagues—and, in particular, colleagues from Victoria—we are seeing further disturbing reports about union bullying. Recent reports in The Age outline a culture of bullying and intimidation of employees of the Country Fire Authority in Victoria by members of the United Firefighters Union. The report says:

Literally hundreds and hundreds of respondents gave detail of behaviours that included criminal sexual assault; sexual harassment; physical altercations; bullying; intimidation; harassment; threats of violence …"

A staff member is reported to have said:

Bullying starts with UFU on CFA, managers against staff. This is a circus, not a work place.

What is worse is that Professor Caroline Taylor, who undertook the survey into bullying in the CFA, was herself bullied. Professor Taylor stated:

Nobody goes to work to be intimidated or harassed or sexually assaulted or raped, and find that, not only can they not report, but when they do they are set upon …

In The Weekend Australian, Simon Benson also reported allegations of intimidation and bullying.

On a point of order, Senator Cameron.

The minister does this every time she's in question time.

What is your point of order?

Could the minister provide any police activity or any evidence that the police have been dealing with this matter? Maybe that is something that she should do—table any documents from the police instead of attacking the trade union movement every day. She is an absolute disgrace.

Senator Cameron, there is no point of order. If you feel as though there are any inaccuracies or there are any aspects of a minister's response that you're not comfortable with, there are many avenues within the program of the Senate for you to address that—not during question time by way of a point of order. Minister, you have the call.

As I was saying, there are reports of allegations of intimidation and bullying by members of the UFU against at least 10 senior firefighters. This appalling behaviour included a bullet being mailed to the home of one of the firefighters. You may ask what prompted such a menacing threat. The victim sought a promotion without seeking permission of the union. The government is always proud to stand alongside the members of the CFA.

Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.

Can the minister outline what the Turnbull government is doing to protect individuals from bullying by members of registered organisations?

We will call out bullying and intimidation, no matter who it is from. We stood up quite proudly for the volunteers of the Country Fire Authority in Victoria and we will continue to do so. These are proud men and women who put their lives on the line every day. Why? Because they believe in community service and they believe in their state of Victoria. It is unfortunate that there are still those who would not stand up for the CFA. What does it say to those volunteers who give their lives and who put their lives on the line? It says that you don't respect or value them. We will always respect and value members of the CFA.

Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.

How can all parliamentarians stand against this appalling behaviour?

We can all take a stand and stop defending the indefensible. We can all take a stand and proudly stand up for all of the volunteers in all of our states who proudly give their time and their service to ensure that their states are safe, especially in times of disasters. We do know that the UFU ended the ministerial career of the left-wing Labor frontbencher Jane Garrett, because she dared to take a stand against them. What we have, constantly, is what was written up in The Age:

It is a strange position for a Premier—

Daniel Andrews

who has worked hard to position himself as strong on respect for women, to have no interest in standing up to a union that appears to have none.

Each and every one of us has a responsibility in this place to stand up and to defend the indefensible, and, in particular, to stand up for the great volunteers. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Cash. In 2013, the then Treasurer Joe Hockey goaded the motor industry into leaving Australia, saying:

There's a hell of a lot of industries in Australia that would love to get the assistance that the motor vehicle industry is getting.

Can the minister confirm that at the time the Australian government's co-investment in the automotive manufacturing was the lowest of any country with an auto industry?

I thank Senator Farrell for his question, and, no, I can't. I disagree with you in relation to the statement that you made about Joe Hockey. What I can say is this: Graham Richardson—a former member of the Labor Party and a former member of cabinet—has today gone on the record and written an op-ed in The Australian. This is what he says in relation to the car industry:

The billions of dollars doled out to GMH, Ford and Toyota during the 80s and 90s and beyond was good money thrown after bad.

This is Graham Richardson, former member of a Labor cabinet.

I sat in cabinet meetings where all of us … were too frightened to tell the workers of Adelaide that this would not end well. … billions of dollars were shovelled at the industry in the certain knowledge it would only delay what fate had destined to occur.

Colleagues, that is a former cabinet minister in the Labor government who has decided enough is enough. He has gone on the record to say exactly what occurred in the Labor cabinet when those opposite were in power.

But, of course, Senator Kim Carr has piped up in the Adelaide Advertiser and said:

I took to Cabinet a proposal to do two new Holden models … and had a plan for $300 million a year in support …

This begs the question: what happened to it? What happened to it, Senator Carr? If the Rudd-Gillard government agreed to it, why are we only reading about it years and years later? I think it's because what Graham Richardson says is true.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Order! Senator Cormann and Senator Carr! Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.

Thank you for that protection, Mr President. The minister anticipated my next question. Can the minister confirm that, prior to the Liberal government announcing cuts to the co-investment in the auto industry of $500 million, both Toyota and Holden were actually looking to expand their operations with new models in Australia?

Tom Phillips, former chief executive of Mitsubishi said: 'Consumer shifts and the sheer volume of models available as the market opened up, meant that Australian car manufacturers were also battling. The car industry made a deliberate decision over a very long period of time that it was not economically viable to continue in Australia.' Let me give you some figures under Labor. In 2007, the annual total sales of locally produced vehicles was 200,045. In 2008 it was 171,042; in 2009, 147,680; in 2010 146,314; in 2011, 141,139; in 2012, 139,796; and in 2013, 118,510. That was under you, Senator Carr.

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.

Yesterday, the minister told the automotive workers: 'The government stands with you.' Was the Liberal government standing with auto workers when it slashed support for the auto industry and goaded manufacturers to leave Australia?

As I have already stated, and as those on the other side know, and particularly with those statistics, the car industry made a decision, not under this government, not under the former government; it made a decision based on economics. This government, though, has proudly worked with those in the car industry—with the industry, the employers and the workers—to ensure that we are assisting manufacturers to move into advanced manufacturing. We have provided specific auto industry transitional assistance since 2013.

For example, as we discussed yesterday, I announced almost $30 million in grants to businesses in Senator Carr's home state of Victoria and in South Australia, to ensure that these businesses are able to grow and to prosper. The government has also helped businesses transition to new industries. There has been $255 million in assistance to since 2013. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table warrants nominating senators Fawcett, Kitching and McCarthy as additional temporary chairs of committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallacher, Chisholm and McAllister today relating to energy policy.

I just want to put on the record at the outset what we are talking about when we refer to energy and electricity prices. The National Electricity Market generates 200 terawatt hours of electricity annually and supplies 80 per cent of Australia's consumption. We know it operates on one of the world's longest interconnected power systems—from Port Douglas in Queensland to Port Lincoln in South Australia. Given the length and breadth of that network—and I keep returning to this—occasionally there are outages which are caused by weather events. Despite Senator Brandis's attempt to portray all of the ills that occurred in South Australia on wind, solar and the like—renewables—we know these outages were caused by a once-in-50-years storm at one end of a 5,000 kilometre network. You can't be allowed to keep putting the falsehood on the record that it was a decision of the South Australian government that caused those power outages. The public record is clear: it was the Olsen government in South Australia that privatised, it was the Olsen government that sold the network. The Olsen government sold the South Australian public a dud with one interconnector and refused the RiverLink interconnector.

It is really important to note that in the National Electricity Market the generators offer and then the market determines the combination of generation to meet demand in the most cost-efficient way, and the AEMO then issues dispatch instructions to these generators. What we also note from the public record is that the only one that's ever been fined for not following those instructions is the Snowy Hydro Scheme, which is owned by the federal government, the Victorian government and the New South Wales government. This is on the public record—a $400,000 fine. This lot over here created the National Electricity Market. They actually used to believe in a free market. And now what do we see? We see the Liddell power plant, with 20 per cent of New South Wales's generating capacity, at the end of its 45- or 50-year life and a Liberal government is stepping in and telling a private company with shareholders what to do with their fully depreciated asset.

That goes to the political point here. They used to believe in one thing and now they believe in another. The Prime Minister has moved consistently; that's the only thing he's done. He's shifted his position consistently, in line with the division in his caucus room, in line with pressure from the Nats. We saw on the weekend another catastrophic result for the National Party in the bush. There was a 20 per cent swing against them. We see this dysfunctional, divided government not making public policy and sending their caucus out to an electorate to say, 'In 2020, you'll save 100 bucks a week.' That's not going to fly. No-one is going to buy that. You might save 50c cents a week! For the people who are under pressure with their electricity bills, that is an absolute insult. I think the polls we have seen will be repeated all the way up to the next election.

This government will get its just desserts. Its just desserts are a number of terms in opposition for the dysfunction they are displaying, the lack of proper pragmatic policy and the lack of bipartisanship in putting energy security for Australian manufacturing and Australian consumers at the forefront of their policy. They are putting their own survival first. The Prime Minister is putting his survival first and Australia's needs second. In manufacturing, there are areas where electricity is 18 or 20 per cent of their costs. This government is not putting forward a coherent long-term policy that would allow investment to deliver the continuation of the manufacturing sector—in plastics, in cement.

We know that this government is only concerned about survival. What we also know is that the electorate has made its mind up, according to the polls. We are now at 21 polls which haven't gone their way. We'll get to 30 or 31 with or without Mr Turnbull—it ain't gonna make any difference. The only thing that will solve this crisis is the re-election of a Labor government and giving the coalition what they deserve, which is a couple of terms in opposition.

The previous speaker was nearly right when he blamed weather events for South Australia's power debacle. What he should have said was that it was a Weatherill event, because Premier Weatherill is responsible for what occurred in South Australia. Make no mistake. On one day, with renewable energy, South Australia got 91 per cent of its energy needs; two or three days later, only three per cent.

That is why this government has identified the need for a reliable energy supply. And that is why we have called our policy the National Energy Guarantee. What we need is reliability of supply along with affordability.

The extreme green experiment by the Australian Labor Party in South Australia has failed, and failed dismally. It has cost thousands of people in South Australia, their households and their businesses.

Households! What are you talking about?

It has been a disaster because when the power goes off, Senator, freezers go off and the food in the freezer goes off, and they've got to rebuy food. These are the basics that every single Australian household knows about, but Labor senators opposite are completely oblivious to these day-to-day needs and requirements. That was a very helpful interjection because it shows how disconnected the Labor Party of today is from the needs of the Australian people.

We as a government have said and said very clearly that affordability is No. 1; reliability is No. 2. And this is what this policy delivers. It was interesting that Senator Gallagher, as he is from South Australia—it is bizarre that he would lead the charge, given the track record of Labor in South Australia, but that aside—led the charge trying to quibble about the savings that Australians would get from our policy. Interesting. But he did not deny that there would be savings. All he was quibbling about was the extent of the savings. In doing so, what did he studiously avoid? He studiously avoided the cost of Labor's policy, a 50 per cent renewable energy target, which, in anybody's language, would drive up energy prices and cost jobs. There is no doubt. So the Labor Party, in seeking to quibble about whether it will be $115 or $100 per annum saved, acknowledge that there will be savings under the coalition policy. What they won't tell you is the huge cost increase under their policy.

We know that the Labor Party are addicted to the carbon tax schemes of high taxes, high subsidies and high prices, and then, if people have to pay too much, you tax other people more to give subsidies to pensioners, and so the list goes on. We have a deliberately focused policy, not about a money-go-round, not about idiotic ideology of pursuing renewable energy at all costs. We are having a balanced policy, which the Labor Party now acknowledge and admit will reduce energy prices. All they're arguing about is the extent of it. So I welcome that concession from the Australian Labor Party. But what they do need to tell the Australian people is what the extra cost of their policy will be. They know there will be an extra cost, because they continually talk about the need for increased targets—in other words, read increased subsidies, increased costs paid for by the taxpayer and paid for by the consumer.

This is the great juxtaposition that the Australian people now have in the debate over energy policy in this country. They have a government committed to affordability and reliability, something which the Australian Labor Party now acknowledges will drive down energy prices in comparison to a Labor government that would say, 'We have tried and failed in South Australia and, with that knowledge, we would seek to implement that on a national scale.' It is not good enough for the Australian people.

I rose yesterday after question time and we'd only had about an hour and a half to digest the announcement made by the government about energy. I suggested that, on the face of what we'd seen, this was a half-baked plan that was barely worked through. I said that because yesterday in question time, over in the other place, it became clear that the government had not prepared a regulatory impact statement and had not undertaken any actual modelling of the proposal that they were bringing before the Australian people. Indeed, if you looked at the fine print of what people were willing to say in their media interviews, all of these finer details, including the commitments around the intensity of emissions and the commitments around reliability, were to be worked up in the lead-up to COAG. It started to look like this was something they cobbled together because of a deadline that was coming upon them this year when the Prime Minister said we would have energy as the defining debate in this parliament. It's nearly Christmas and I suppose they had to do something, but they really weren't ready to go out yesterday. Nothing I have seen since this time yesterday has given me any reason to change my mind.

The government's been keen to talk about experts and to talk about the role of Dr Schott and Mr Pierce in particular. They are both people for whom I have great respect. But both Dr Schott and Mr Pierce actually blew the whistle on this show yesterday because Dr Schott did an interview last night and she was asked, 'Will prices go down? Is the government right when it claims that prices will be reduced by $115 per household?' She refused to endorse the claim. She refused to endorse it for the sensible reason that there has been absolutely no modelling done that could possibly support such a claim. I am extremely surprised that the government has been willing to go out so strongly on this question because I do believe it will come back to haunt them. Mr Pierce was similarly candid. What did he tell the media? He said that there'd been a range of scenarios that had been modelled and they produced, unsurprisingly, different results. Some of those results were as little as just $25 a year in savings for households in 2020. These experts that the government has been so keen to rely on have been disarmingly candid in their assessment about this plan and it reveals what I remarked earlier: there is no plan yet. There is a bunch of vague ideas that are going to be worked up in the lead-up to COAG.

Today in question time, I sought to ask the government about their approach to renewables because, all around the world, investment in renewables is growing at an incredible rate. The IEA reported earlier this month that, globally, renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of the new power capacity in 2016. Where are the biggest markets for renewables? They're in China, India and the United States. They are the three big markets in our region and the three big partners for Australia. Those countries, the big economic players in our region, are moving towards renewables so why wouldn't we ask the government to explain what this plan means for renewables investment in this country? Senator Brandis chose not to explain. He ducked the question. He refused to engage with my premise—fair enough—but he provided no alternative premise. In fact, I have not heard one single member of the government provide any credible explanation of what is expected for renewables investment on the basis of this new scheme that they've brought forward. It's not surprising that there are no details, but why bring such a half-baked proposition before the Australian people?

I will say one final thing. There is going to come a time when these details are going to have to be put into the public domain. You can't go on like this with a series of slogans forever. At some point you're going to have to turn up at COAG and, I'll tell you what, state premiers are not going to be forgiving. That will be on both sides of the aisle. There are a bundle of contradictions in the proposition that you've brought forward.

You've told the conservatives in your party room that this might deliver on their great hope there will be new investment in coal. You've told everybody else that, sure, this will deliver on the emissions reduction targets that we made in Paris and, not only that, the energy sector will do its fair share and we won't leave it all to the trucking sector or the farming sector. And you've told the Australian public that prices will come down. I'm looking forward to seeing you square that circle, because on the basis of what we've seen I don't believe you can. (Time expired)

I do believe that the opposition has been left quite flat footed on this issue. The opposition has been left with their mouths gaping open, devoid of any answers, devoid of any ideas. This clearly was not a policy that they were expecting, largely because they have been so wedded to a clean energy target for so long for reasons that range from political necessity—obviously you're sandbagging your inner-city seats from your frenemies the Greens—to a lack of imagination and an inability to listen to consumers, to households, to businesses or to investors about what is important to them.

The National Energy Guarantee delivers affordable energy. It delivers reliable energy. It meets emissions targets and meets our international obligations. It's hardly a half-baked idea. In fact, those opposite have been urging the government for months now to present an answer on the clean energy target. The Finkel review came out in June. We have implemented 49 of the 50 recommendations, including, I might add, establishing the Energy Security Board. The 50th recommendation, which was the clean energy target, has been considered. We have done our due diligence, and the Energy Security Board has come up with a solution that we believe meets all of those requirements and all of those objectives.

Unlike the habitually uninformed Senator Gallacher, I am going to accurately quote an expert in this field. It was the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, who said of the Energy Security Board:

Consisting of the energy market regulators and an independent Chair and Deputy Chair, it is the country’s most authoritative voice in energy matters.

…   …   …

I am pleased that the Australian Government asked the Energy Security Board to provide advice on this matter.

…   …   …

I know from consultations with the Energy Security Board in the later stages of the development of the new proposals that the process was thorough.

I don't think you can get a more ringing endorsement of this plan, unlike Labor's plan—or lack of plan. Labor has no plan at all for reliable energy. It is a policy one-trick pony. They cannot think beyond the world of subsidies and taxes. They want to impose reckless and irresponsible renewable energy targets that would drive up prices and undermine reliability. They want to take the failed South Australian experiment and they want to take it national. They've given no thought at all to reliable energy needed to keep the lights on when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Their plan to give billions of dollars of subsidies to pursue an ideological crusade will only leave families, households and businesses paying more. The cost of this lunacy could be as high as $66 billion.

Most importantly, though, the National Energy Guarantee encourages the right investment in the right places at the right time. Threaten what you will, Senator McAllister, from Labor premiers at COAG; that is entirely inappropriate. This is an opportunity for the flat-footed opposition to take a big leap forward with those flat feet, an opportunity for the crossbench to break free of the uncritical groupthink, and consign the energy wars to the past. We can secure energy supplies, we can keep the lights on, we can bring prices down, we can ease the burden on hip pockets, we can reduce emissions and we can meet our international obligations.

I want to record for the chamber the fact that members opposite again today have repeated the claim that the privatisation of networks in South Australia is the cause of higher prices in South Australia. Unfortunately for those opposite, that claim that privatisation has caused the high prices has been shown to be completely false by the report of the ACCC out just in the last week that showed:

The main cause of higher customer bills was the significant increase in network costs for all states other than South Australia.

It goes on to say:

The ACCC estimates that in 2016-17, Queenslanders will be paying the most for their electricity, followed by South Australians …

And they highlight that in Queensland the network is still owned by the government and that the most significant input to the cost to Queenslanders was the network cost. They go on to say:

The closure of large baseload coal generation plants has seen gas-powered generation becoming the marginal source of generation more frequently, particularly in South Australia.

What that means is that, when those peaking plants have to come on in South Australia, the costs go up. (Time expired)

Senator Chisholm, five minutes, thanks.

I certainly wouldn't accuse the government of being flat-footed on energy; in fact, they've been very fleet of foot, because they've had so many policies over the last couple of years. I think we have to go back and look at some of the history of this. We know that, as Prime Minister, Tony Abbott promised that bills would reduce by $550, yet we know how much they've gone up under this government. We know that under the time line that we can see from Finkel, the government and the Prime Minister and indeed the energy minister were out there advocating for this. They were in the party room advocating for this. They did another PowerPoint presentation advocating for Finkel. It sounds like they went back yesterday and leapt onto their latest plan. We also recall the gas crisis that we've had over the last couple of months that still the government haven't solved. We also saw them, a couple of months ago, talking about Liddell and saying that Liddell power station had to be extended. So they certainly haven't been flat-footed; they've had plenty of policies, but none of them have actually worked.

The saddest thing I've heard in the last 48 hours about this policy is them saying that it was carried by acclamation. It was this mob that clapped this policy. And it's a fig leaf of a policy. It is an absolute joke. They have no credibility. And they've had to roll out the board to give them some credibility because they have done so much damage to their own standing on policy on this issue.

I think it's worth looking at what their motivation is in this. Effectively, in trying to come up with a policy, they've had zero regard for families; they've had zero regard for jobs. But what they have focused on in this policy is keeping the right-wingers on their backbench happy and coming up with a political message that they want to use for an election campaign. This has got nothing about long-term policy for Australian families and jobs. They're all trying to keep their backbench happy and come up with a political message. That is actually what they have been focused on with this policy.

The fact that they've had to attempt to use the security board to provide that fig leaf of credibility shows you how desperate they are. But that's actually the start of the unravelling, because it has been those members that have undermined their claims on costs; it has been the security board members that have undermined their claims when it comes to modelling. This is why the policy will start to unravel, and this is why those right-wingers on the backbench—those ones who are pro coal; those ones who want to live in a previous lifetime—are going to start to realise that they've been hoodwinked, and that is when these problems of the government are going to emerge. The Nationals will be the ringleaders in this, but so will some of those backbenchers in the Liberal Party. So it's a policy that was designed to basically hoodwink the backbench—to give those pro-coal backbenchers something that they wanted to hear so that they could back this policy in. It actually is a very sad outcome that they just sat there and clapped this through without questioning the modelling behind it or the details, because obviously those have been lacking.

It really is a farce when you think that, in question time, the Prime Minister wouldn't even guarantee a 50c-per-week reduction in 2020. Senator Brandis, heroically, tried to deflect that question. But, in question time in the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Turnbull wouldn't even guarantee that 50c reduction. To make matters worse, the very people who advised the government on the new energy policy say that there hasn't been any modelling done to gauge the real price impact of their plan. That just shows you how farcical this is and how desperate this government is.

We also know that for many months now the Labor opposition have had the hand of bipartisanship out and have been prepared to work on a clean energy target, and it speaks volumes that this government wouldn't entertain that. They were dictated to by their backbench. They did not want to end the climate wars. They did not want to have a long-term bipartisan policy that would benefit families, that would benefit jobs and that would benefit the economy. Their focus is on politics. The focus is on trying to keep the backbench happy. But it is going to unravel, because the motivation for this policy is not the Australian people. It is not about providing the outcomes that Australian families and communities need, nor is it focusing on jobs and reliability.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today.

Like goats to the volcano, these are the days of the 45th Parliament. Let's not forget that this policy backflip, this reversal, this capitulation started with a speech last week in the UK by the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, where he came out and said, in simple language—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I know that you weren't happy with it, Senator Brandis—that climate change is crap. He talked about goats being sacrificed to volcanos, as well as being thoroughly disrespectful to climate scientists. The big question we need to ask ourselves about the policy that's been announced in the last 24 hours is: if it's so good and it's got the backing of so many experts and it's the solution to all our problems—political problems, reliability problems, price problems and emissions problems—why has it taken five frigging years to get it into this chamber? Why has it taken this mob five years to come up with a policy? We've had five years of policy chaos, five years of policy uncertainty. I'll tell you why—and I'll come back to goats and volcanoes.

I am not going to show you this prop, Madam Deputy President, but I do want to read from one of my favourite cartoonists, Jon Kudelka, who also happens to be a very famous proponent of Tasmania. In his cartoon today, he has a picture of the Prime Minister, who looks like a goat. He's on the edge of a volcano, and he's saying:

"That was my last goat," spake Malcolm. 'Art thou appeased, Great One?'

Inside the volcano is a ghostly, smoky apparition of Mr Tony Abbott:

"MORE GOATS!" screamed the volcano goat.

Well, there you have it. That's why we have had this capitulation in policy today. It is a capitulation that incentivises more burning of dirty coal, keeping uneconomic, dirty coal plants open for longer. It is a plan that will kill investment in renewables in this country—investment that requires long time horizons, long-term contracts and long-term certainty. It is a policy backflip that will further undermine our global reputation in the fight against climate change. We know that key criticisms of this policy reversal have been raised—criticisms that are very important to us in terms of our meeting the Paris Agreement and the spirit of the Paris Agreement.

Senator Williams interjecting—

What this means—for Senator William's benefit, through you, Mr President—is that we get together every couple of years with the others who sign the Paris Agreement and we agree to tighten our targets and increase our efforts to tackle global warming. That's what we agree to do. This policy reversal puts a ceiling on our Paris commitments. That's what this does. That's the red meat that has been thrown to the volcano god by our Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull.

Speaking about goats, sitting here during question time reminded me of an excellent book that I read by Mr Jon Ronson called The Men Who Stare at Goats. Let me tell you about this book. It's a true story. It's about a secret operations group that was set up by the US military to try to empower operatives with extrasensory perception and special powers. One of the things they did was stare at goats, hoping that if they could concentrate their powers on staring at goats then the goats would die. Interestingly enough, one did actually die during the experiment, and that's outlined in the book.

The metaphorical example here is a very real one. This government can stare as much as it likes at climate change action and pretend that climate change is going to go away, but it won't go away. The oceans are warming, the reef is dying, and we are seeing unprecedented extreme weather. We need to go further than our Paris agreements. This is not an answer to reliable energy, cheap power or climate; this is an answer to saving Malcolm Turnbull's political bacon.

Question agreed to.

I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 16 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Inspector of Transport Security Regulations 2017. I also give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 14 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Legal Services Directions 2017.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Macdonald for 19 October 2017, on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Griff from 18 to 19 October 2017, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the second last sitting day in March 2018:

The adequacy of the regulatory framework governing water use by the extractive industry, with particular reference to:

(a) the social, economic and environmental impacts of extractive projects' take and use of water;

(b) existing safeguards in place to prevent the damage, contamination or draining of Australia' s aquifers and water systems;

(c) any gaps in the regulatory framework which may lead to adverse social, economic or environmental outcomes, as a result of the take and use of water by extractive projects;

(d) any difference in the regulatory regime surrounding the extractive industry' s water use, and that of other industries;

(e) the effectiveness of the 'water trigger' under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the value in expanding the 'trigger' to include other projects, such as shale and tight gas; and

(f) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This inquiry is unnecessary, as safeguards are already in place to sustainably manage water resources. The Water Act governs water extraction in the Murray-Darling Basin, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has a water trigger requiring environmental assessment for coal seam gas and large coalmining development that may significantly impact water resources. A 2017 independent water trigger review found it is an appropriate mechanism to manage risks to water resources. A review of the EPBC Act will also commence by 2019, including the operation of the act as it relates to extractive industries. The government sees no justification for this inquiry. It notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretariats and expresses its concern at additional references.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the duties of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and for other purposes; and A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, and for other purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bills and 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.

I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AMENDMENT (FAIR AND BALANCED) BILL 2017

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017 amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation' s Charter, as set out in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act), to require the organisation' s news services to be ' fair' and ' balanced' .

This obligation will sit alongside the existing requirement that the ABC' s news services are ' accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism' .

The Australian people expect a publicly funded broadcaster to canvass a broad range of issues, and report on those issues in a fair and balanced manner.

There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that Australians have confidence that they can rely on the ABC as a source of information to inform their views on significant issues.

A statutory requirement for fair and balanced reporting will promote such confidence, and ensure that the ABC is a source of information which they can draw on to inform their views on significant public issues.

It is important to recognise that the bill will not alter or diminish in any way the ABC' s independence. Objectively, there should be no concern about this proposal. The ABC' s own Editorial Policies require the ABC to adhere to fair treatment in the gathering and presentation of news and information, and a balance in its news reporting that follows the weight of evidence. The amendment contained in this bill simply enshrines this obligation in legislation.

It will support and strengthen the ABC' s reputation for providing trustworthy and dependable news and information services, and ensure the organisation uphold the standards expected of it by the Australian public.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AMENDMENT (RURAL AND REGIONAL MEASURES) BILL 2017

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) to ensure regional communities are provided for in the functions of the Corporation, and through representation on the ABC Board.

The ABC occupies an important place in the lives of regional communities. Over many decades its services have informed and entertained communities in areas where other media options are limited.

This bill contains a range of measures to support and cement that role, and ensure the ABC continues to focus on and meet the diverse needs of rural and regional Australia.

I will now turn to the specifics of the bill.

[Amending the ABC Charter to include regional and geographic diversity]

One of the functions of the ABC, as stipulated by its Charter, is to provide broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community.

The bill will broaden that mandate to ensure the Charter makes specific reference to the function for the ABC's broadcasting programs to contribute to a sense of regional as well as national identity, and reflect the geographic as well as cultural diversity of the Australian community.

Most Australians would be surprised to learn that the Charter currently has no such references. This is an important amendment that codifies the relationship that the ABC already has with regional Australia, and ensures the organisation continues to provide services that are valued by, and reflect the needs of, rural and regional communities.

[Establishment of a Regional Advisory Council]

While the ABC Charter sets the broad mandate for the organisation, its capacity to deliver on that mandate necessitates having in place the right governance arrangements and operational structures. The ABC must be able to understand the needs and perspectives of regional areas if it is to well service rural and regional Australia.

To this end, the bill will require the ABC Board to establish a Regional Advisory Council within 3 months after the day the bill receives Royal Assent.

The role of this Council will be to reflect the views of regional Australia, and the ABC Board will be obliged to consult with the Council on any change to its broadcasting services that will have a substantial impact on regional Australia.

The Regional Advisory Council will be established by the ABC Board in the same manner as the existing ABC Advisory Council, under section 11 of the ABC Act.

The Regional Advisory Council will be made up of members who have a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional community through business, industry or community involvement.

Regional Advisory Council members will not be permitted to be members of another advisory ABC council or committee and the ABC will be required to report on all consultations with the Regional Advisory Council through its Annual Report.

This amendment will ensure that a more formal mechanism is in place to ensure decisions of the ABC board are taken after proper consultation with affected audiences.

[ABC Board connection to regional Australia]

The bill also makes changes to ensure a minimum level of representation by individuals with an understanding of rural and regional communities on the ABC Board.

The bill will require the ABC Board to have at least two appointed non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional community through business, industry or community involvement.

This measure will ensure that at the highest level in the organisation, the needs and views of regional and rural areas are appropriately represented.

The bill will require the Minister (in relation to non-executive directors) or the Prime Minister (in the case of the ABC Chair) to table a statement in each House of the Parliament outlining the person's substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional community.

This provision allows the Government to establish a 'baseline' for the regional skills set of the ABC Board, and any future appointment processes will then need to take this into account.

Through its appointments to the ABC board, the Government has ensured that this new requirement will already be satisfied. This amendment ensures that the ABC board will always have at least two members who have an understanding of the needs of rural and regional communities.

[Annual reporting obligations]

Finally, the bill will introduce a number of additional annual reporting obligations for the ABC.

These will require the broadcaster to provide statistics on the number of individuals employed in regional and metropolitan areas.

This will include details on the number of journalists employed in regional areas, as well as the total number of hours of local or regional news bulletins broadcast each year.

This is important for transparency. It is appropriate that the Parliament, and the Australian people, are able to see the deployment of staff and the production of local content.

Conclusion

As a whole, the bill contains a range of measures that will strengthen the focus of the ABC on rural and regional communities. They represent important safeguards for those Australians living outside the capital cities and larger metropolitan areas.

They will ensure that our primary national broadcaster retains and deepens its connection to communities in the bush.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

On behalf of Senator McGrath, I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017

Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 6) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 10 October 2017 was the 15th World Day Against the Death Penalty,

(ii) the aim of the 2017 World Day Against the Death Penalty was to raise awareness about the reasons why people living in poverty are at a greater risk of being sentenced to death and executed, and

(iii) this year marks 50 years since Australia' s last execution, which sparked nationwide protests and eventually lead to the abolition of the death penalty in Australia;

(b) acknowledges the continued strong opposition by the Australian Government to the death penalty;

(c) congratulates the Australian Government in securing a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and acknowledges its commitment to make advocacy for global abolition of the death penalty a priority during its tenure on the UNHRC, and

(d) welcomes the Australian Government' s commitment to the development of a whole-of-government Strategy for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, which was a key recommendation from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia' s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its most common form heart disease causes one-fifth of all deaths in Australia, and it affects more Australians than any other disease,

(ii) inequality is rife in CVD, with the huge impact of this disease disproportionately borne by those already facing socio-economic disadvantage, those in remote locations, women, and those with lack of access to health services,

(iii) the inequality in heart disease is most significant for Indigenous Australians,­ with Indigenous CVD sufferers more likely to develop severe heart disease complicated by diabetes, renal disease and other forms of vascular disease at a much younger age, and

(iv) despite progressive improvements in treatment of acute CVD events, those who survive their first cardiac event will inevitably develop a chronic form of heart disease that will reduce their quality of life, and reduce longevity – increasing the need for prevention, as well as treatment; and

(b) calls on the Government to address both the staggering rates of CVD and the entrenched inequality in heart disease by implementing the recommendations of the final report of the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence to Reduce Inequality in Heart Disease, The Heart of Inequality, including:

(i) establishing an Inequality in Heart Disease Advisory Group to provide independent recommendations,

(ii) investing in definitive studies into cardiovascular risk and disease in Australia to more accurately guide cost-effective prevention, treatment and management programs in high-risk populations, and

(iii) funding a national campaign to raise awareness of CVD in high-risk populations, including, in particular, a targeted campaign for women given their higher risk.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators Carr and Xenophon, I move:

That—

(1) The Senate notes that:

(a) on 29 June 2017, the Joint Select Committee into Government Procurement tabled its report, Buying into our Future: Review of amendments to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules; and

(b) among other things, the report found that 'Economic benefit, in particular, requires explicit definition and weighting to properly assess suppliers claims'.

(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 3.30 pm on 19 October 2017, a copy of the report commissioned by the Department of Finance entitled, Template for tender responses regarding economic benefit to the Australian economy.

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Moore and Siewert, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 12 October 2017 marked World Sight Day 2017,

(ii) the international theme for World Sight Day 2017 is 'Make Vision Count',

(iii) the Lancet Global Health Journal reported, in 2017, that globally 253 million people are vision-impaired, while the prevalence of blindness is five times higher in low income countries than in high income countries,

(iv) 89 per cent of visually-impaired people live in low and middle-income countries, and 55 per cent of visually-impaired people are women,

(v) recent global estimates suggest that up to 80 per cent of vision impairment and blindness is avoidable through the appropriate implementation of cost-effective prevention and treatment strategies, and

(vi) the American Journal of Ophthalmology estimates that Global VISION 2020 eye care program could prevent more than 100 million cases of blindness between 2000 and 2020; and

(b) urges the Australian Government to work closely with VISION 2020 members on improving eye health and vision care outcomes across health, ageing, disability and international development to eliminate preventable blindness and vision loss in Australia, and in the Asia-Pacific region.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Moore, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the International Day of the Girl is celebrated each year on 11 October and the focus of this day is on unleashing the power and potential of girls all over the world,

(ii) as part of 2017 Day of the Girl, Plan International Australia partnered with Wellcom Worldwide to interview more than 1700 Australian girls aged between 10 to 17 years – the report gives rare insight into how girls experience their world and the areas where they want to see change to improve the opportunities available to them to live rich and fulfilling lives: girls want to see action, including to:

(A) address sexist advertising, to prevent girls and boys growing up with unhealthy and restrictive gender stereotypes,

(B) fight the gender pay gap, which continues to demonstrate that women are valued less than men, and

(C) measure our progress towards eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and girls,

(iii) despite a commitment to gender equality, set out in the Sustainable Development Goals, there is an absence of evidence about the situation for girls,

(iv) this year, Girls Take Over Parliament has involved 17 girls aged between 18 to 24 years, with the support and participation of members and senators from across the Parliament, and

(v) the Girls Take Over Parliament program:

(A) takes in the possibilities of what girls can achieve when they break the stereotypes that hold them back,

(B) shows that when girls have a political voice, they can demand action to ensure all girls can learn, lead, decide and thrive, and

(C) shows that empowerment is not enough, instead significant political and social change is needed that makes girls and their lives visible to governments and policy makers; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to listen, count and consider girls' experiences and unique needs, and to work to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and girls.

I seek leave to make a short statement on this.

Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Mr President. Although we acknowledge the sterile, middle-class-type platitudes intended by this motion, One Nation cannot support it and briefly states that that is because a motion such as this should highlight the plight of all little female children, especially those subjected to the barbaric and backward rituals of the Islamic ideology. This motion should have sent a message of hope and encouragement to each and every girl, but sadly it hasn't.

Australian and international Islamic girls face religious and state-sanctioned genital mutilation, forced marriages to much older men and the constant sexual assault and suppression of women. This motion fails to address any of the challenges faced by young Islamic girls, because the tired old parties will not want to risk the votes of middle-aged Islamic men, and frankly that's disgraceful. We cannot support this motion until the plight of all little girls everywhere is addressed.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that 10 October 2017 marked World Day Against the Death Penalty,

(ii) that it is 40 years since the landmark Declaration of Stockholm, the first international abolitionist manifesto on the death penalty,

(iii) the important work of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in campaigning for the universal abolition of capital punishment, and

(iv) that 40 years ago, only 16 countries had fully abolished the death penalty - now this figure stands at 105;

(b) further notes the recommendations made in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, A world without the death penalty: Australia's advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty, including that:

(i) the Attorney-General's Department conduct a review of the current legislative arrangements for extradition and mutual assistance to ensure that they uphold Australia' s obligations as a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

(ii) Australian approaches to advocacy for abolition of the death penalty be based on human rights arguments,

(iii) the Australian Government provide dedicated and appropriate funding to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including adequate staffing, to resource the preparation and implementation of the Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, and to fund grants to civil society organisations, scholarships, training, research and/or capacity building projects aimed at the abolition of the death penalty, and ongoing operational funds,

(iv) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade coordinate the development of a whole-of-government Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, which has as its focus countries of the Indo-Pacific and the United States of America, and

(v) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commit to having a publicly-releasable document finalised by mid-2017; and

(c) noting the Parliament's bipartisan support for the abolition of the death penalty:

(i) urges the Government to develop and release a public policy and strategy document to guide its efforts to promote abolition of the death penalty, and

(ii) calls on the Government to provide the Senate with an update on progress of the strategy.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 2 October 2017, the Hobart City Council supported a motion in relation to cruise ship fuel in Hobart,

(ii) the City of Hobart resolved to urgently write to the Federal Government to request that, through appropriate legislative directives, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport set an upper limit of 0.1 per cent for fuel oil sulphur content for bunker fuel while cruise ships are berthed in the Port of Hobart, the bunker fuel burned by cruise ships in the Port of Hobart can currently have up to 3.5 per cent sulphur content in contrast to Sydney Harbour where cruise ships have a legislated limit of less than 0.1 per cent sulphur content, and

(iii) the legislated limit for Sydney Harbour of 0.1 per cent was enacted due to public concern over the harmful effects on human health of high sulphur content in bunker fuel affecting air quality in Sydney Harbour; and

(b) calls on the Government to urgently respond to the City of Hobart and set an upper limit of 0.1 per cent fuel oil sulphur content for cruise ships berthed in the Port of Hobart.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute, Senator McGrath.

The government understands that the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority will be monitoring air quality across this cruise ship season. The government is willing to consider a request from the Tasmanian government to implement a lower fuel-sulphur-content level for cruise ships at berth in the port of Hobart, if it is submitted with supporting evidence.

Question agreed to.

I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Moore will also sponsor this motion.

Thank you.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Moore, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 18 October 2017, 17 young women who are interested in a career in politics have stepped into the shoes of members of Parliament for a day, to get valuable insight into political life as part of a global movement for girls' leadership, hosted by Plan International in celebration of International Day of the Girl and to support women' s representation in politics,

(ii) Plan International Australia surveyed more than 500 young people about Australian politics in a report released today, She Can Lead, and

(iii) almost half the young women surveyed for the report (45 per cent), felt there were not enough opportunities for them to become politicians and one in three women (34 per cent) felt their gender was a barrier; and

(b) calls on all parliamentarians to heed the recommendations of the report, She Can Lead, and commit to supporting young women's aspirations and contributions to politics and public life.

Question agreed to.

Similarly, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Moore also sponsors this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Moore, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) this week there has been a groundswell of people sharing on social media their #MeToo accounts of harassment, intimidation and violence by men,

(ii) according to research in 2015, 87 per cent of Australian women have experienced at least one form of verbal or physical street harassment, and 40 per cent of Australian women do not feel safe when walking alone at night in the area where they live, compared to 17 per cent of men,

(iii) one in three Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15,

(iv) at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner in Australia, and

(v) women should not have to publicly share their stories of personal trauma and distress in order for our society to act on these issues;

(b) calls on all parliamentarians to support and model meaningful cultural change in Australia that values and respects women, so we can eliminate sexism and misogyny from our society; and

(c) calls on the Government to take decisive action to properly fund and support frontline services for women fleeing violence, as well as primary prevention programs to address gender inequality and other drivers of violence.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 539 standing in my name for today, relating to the ABC and SBS.

Leave granted.

I have had the amendments circulated in the chamber. I've also spoken to both the Labor and the government members running the show here. Substantially, it's not much different. There is slightly different wording, but also I have added Senator Deb O'Neill as a co-sponsor of the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move the motion as amended:

The Senate notes:

a) The overwhelming public support for the ABC and SBS in providing news services, quality programming including for children, and online catch up services iView and SBS On Demand.

b) The vital role of the national broadcasters in promoting a diversity of services in the Australian media environment.

c) The Liberal-National Government is waging an ideological war on public broadcasting, as evidenced by successive budget cuts, reviews and inquiries, and its recent deal with the One Nation Party in the context of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 which includes:

a. a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS

b. amendments to the ABC Charter to undermine its independence

c. amendments to legislation to force the disclosure of the salaries of staff at the ABC and SBS.

The Senate agrees it will not support legislation that forces the ABC or SBS to publicise the salaries of its staff, breaching their right to privacy.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government does not support this motion. The government supports the ABC and SBS with over $1.3 billion in taxpayer funding every year. The Australian public deserves transparency over how this money is spent, and the government's policy to require additional transparency in relation to staff salaries is an appropriate requirement and follows the example of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The government has asked the ABC and SBS to implement this policy voluntarily. Should they refuse to do so, the Senate will have an opportunity to determine this matter through debate on legislation.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

One Nation does not support this motion. We believe, because they are taxpayer funded organisations, that taxpayers have a right to know what wages are paid at the ABC and SBS—because they are accountable to the public. If the Greens are concerned about women and men getting paid the same and the inequality in wages, this would clearly show what inequality there is. It is known that ABC female presenters are well and truly underpaid compared to what their male counterparts are paid. Apart from that, taxpayers have the right to know what they are paying out in wages to these organisations.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I had planned to oppose this motion, but, since talking to a lot of people in the industry, not at the ABC, and executives of TV stations, I think it will be enough for the ABC to publish the total money paid to their staff, otherwise it will inhibit ABC staff members who might want to move into the commercial area. If they are going to be paid half a million dollars, I don't know, but, if the commercial sector knows that they are only being paid $200,000 at the ABC, the commercial people will know they would only have to pay $250,000. I support some of where you're coming from, but I will go along with the Greens on this one. As long as we're told the total money spent on journalism and staff, that is enough for us to know. I think individually those contracts should be protected.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young, as amended, be agreed to.

Senators, I advise you there's most likely going to be a number of divisions, so the provisions of standing order 101 will apply and the bells will only be rung for one minute in the appropriate circumstances.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Turnbull Government cut nearly 1200 jobs from the Department of Human Services in the 2017-18 Budget;

(b) acknowledges that 42 million calls to Centrelink hit a busy signal between 1 July 2016 and 30 April 2017;

(c) notes that the Government is engaging private contractor Serco to supply 250 call centre workers to answer Centrelink calls from income support recipients;

(d) condemns allowing a private contractor to run a critical Government service involving access to the personal information of Centrelink clients; and

(e) calls on the Government to reinstate the jobs cut from the Department of Human Services, and act on the recommendations of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, as soon as possible.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition government is investing $52 million to make it easier for Australians to access Centrelink. This introduces 250 new Australian jobs to help reduce call wait times, on top of existing staff numbers. This is part of the unprecedented investment this government is making in the Department of Human Services, such as the $1 billion spent on IT annually. Serco staff will be fully trained and required to comply with all government privacy and security standards. Average staffing level reductions in the budget papers reflect adjustments, including support required in past years for emergencies such as Cyclone Debbie, and support for the National Disability Insurance Agency.

The question is that Notice of Motion 538 moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2018:

The economic and cultural value of Australian content on broadcast, radio and streaming services, with particular reference to:

(a) the current state and operation of the market for Australian television and music industry, including competition issues relating to the relative market power of producers and broadcasters for traditional, streaming and catch up viewing;

(b) the contribution the Australian television and music industries make to the economy;

(c) the value and importance of:

(i) local content requirements for television, radio and streaming services in Australia, and

(ii) Australian children' s television and children' s content;

(d) related inquiries including:

(i) recent international reviews and reports, in particular, from the United Kingdom and Canada, and

(ii) submissions made to:

(A) the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts inquiry into factors contributing to the growth and sustainability of the Australian film and television industry, and

(B) the Australian and Children' s Content Review, undertaken by the Department of the Communications and the Arts, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and Screen Australia; and

(e) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government does not support this motion. As the motion itself notes, there are already two inquiries underway on this subject: there is an inquiry being undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, and the government is conducting an Australian and Children's Screen Content Review involving the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and Screen Australia. The motion makes no case as to why a third inquiry is needed. Those involved in the Australian content production and broadcasting industries would much prefer to be spending their time focusing on their core business.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) takes note of an event scheduled to occur on 26 October 2017 at the Australian National University entitled "Celebrating the 1917 Russian Revolution", organised by Socialist Alternative;

(b) observes that this year marks 100 years since that revolution, which led to a litany of human rights abuses and approximately 10 million deaths;

(c) notes that the 1917 revolution promoted Leninist and Marxist teaching to the broader world; and

(d) rejects any assertion that the teachings of Lenin or Marx should be celebrated in a liberal democracy.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bernardi—No. 530—be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend the motion by deleting the words 'also growing' in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) congratulates Mr Sebastian Kurz and the Austrian People' s Party on their election result which sees Mr Kurz poised to become both Chancellor of the Republic of Austria, and the world' s youngest national leader;

(b) notes the rising voices in support of conservative principles, like that of Mr Kurz and his party, in Europe; and

(c) further notes the similar voices in support for sovereign nations withdrawing from the European Union.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 533, moved by Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the United States of America' s Department of State has informed the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Director-General of the United States' intention to withdraw from that organisation on 31 December 2018 due to its continuing anti-Israel bias, and

(ii) Australia is also a friend of Israel, as well as a close ally of the United States; and

(b) calls upon the Government to consider Australia' s membership of UNESCO.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australia continually reviews its membership of all international organisations to ensure they align with our national interests. Australia currently intends to remain a member of UNESCO. Australia's interests are well served by UNESCO's work on culture and freedom of speech and by its programs in areas like preservation of heritage. UNESCO's efforts to counter violent extremism and the destruction of cultural property are highly relevant to the struggle against Daesh. Australia agrees with the United States that some UNESCO resolutions have treated Israel unfairly. When these issues arise we raise our concerns actively with UNESCO board members and like-minded member states.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) commends the Institute of Public Affairs for its research report, The Rise of Identity Politics: An Audit of History Teaching at Australian Universities in 2017 ;

(b) expresses concern at the reduced teaching in universities about the benefits of Western civilisation, the Enlightenment and the Reformation;

(c) expresses concern at the increased teaching in universities about divisive topics of race, gender, environment and sexuality in the history curriculum; and

(d) calls upon the Australian Government to review the history curriculum to ensure it reflects Australian heritage and values.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government welcomes the Institute of Public Affairs report as an important contribution to the public discussion on the importance of universities as places of learning, free speech and ideas. The government does not set the curriculum for universities and it would be an attack on academic integrity were a government in a liberal democracy to control what is taught at universities. However, standards must be met and are governed by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bernardi be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges Australia has secured a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC);

(b) notes that some past and present UNHRC member states have poor human rights records themselves;

(c) further notes the inordinate amount of time the UNHRC has devoted to criticising Israel; and

(d) urges the Australian Government to use its term to focus the UNHRC on genuine abuses of human rights, failing which the government should reconsider its engagement with the United Nations altogether.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for 60 seconds.

Australia is a committed member of the United Nations. Australia's membership of the Human Rights Council will support the government's efforts to address some of the world's most-pressing human rights challenges. This is the first time Australia has sought election to the council, and the first time a country from the Pacific region will be represented. We will use our time on the council to push for meaningful reform to ensure the organisation is more effective. Our priorities will include empowering women and girls to reach their full potential, freedom of expression and promoting good governance and democratic institutions. The government will also continue to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, for freedom of religion and for the rights of persons with a disability.

The question is that notice of motion No. 529, moved by Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate notes that—

(a) the Melbourne Cup is known as the "race that stops the nation";

(b) according to the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses' analysis of stewards' reports, from 1 August 2016 to 31 July 2017, 137 horses were killed on the track;

(c) according to Professor Ray Geor from the University of Michigan, studies show that almost 90 per cent of racehorses suffer exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage (EIPH), otherwise known as bleeding in the respiratory system, at least once after three races;

(d) a 2005 report, for the Australian Government' s Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, notes EIPH as cause of morbidity and its high prevalence in racing thoroughbreds; and

(e) according to veterinarians Ms Leanne Begg and Mr Chris O' Sullivan, from the Randwick Equine Centre, the prevalence of gastric ulceration, otherwise known as stomach ulcers, in thoroughbred racehorses is reported to be between 66 per cent and 93 per cent, increasing to 80 per cent to 100 per cent as duration in training increases and horses commence racing.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes the Government' s claims that its National Energy Guarantee will reduce household bills by an average of $110 to $115 per year over the period between 2020 to 2030; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, by no later than 12.45 pm on 19 October 2017, documents and detailed modelling that support the Government' s claims of a reduction in household energy bills.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The advice of the Energy Security Board is publicly available on the Council of Australian Government's Energy Council's website. It states:

It is expected that following the guarantee could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of $100-115 per annum over the 2020-2030 period.

Question agreed to.

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today, five proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

'The link between the government's collapse in public support and their hostility towards clean energy, their delusional pro-coal agenda, and their steadfast refusal to embrace progress.'

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Reflect on question time today, where a number of questions were put to the government to provide details on their NEG; their new energy policy. It is a policy, may I say, that's taken the Liberal National Party nearly five years to arrive at—five years to arrive at this. That's the big question that they won't answer and it's probably the question that they can't answer. But we can. We got this policy this week—this National Energy Guarantee—because Mr Tony Abbott, our ex-Prime Minister, gave a speech last week and ignited the culture wars within the LNP by talking about offering goats to volcanos and how climate change was rubbish. That is why we got a policy from our current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, this week. It is a policy that is so vague on details that it beggars belief.

After five years, Attorney-General Brandis told us today that the experts tell us all we need to know. They tell us that it will provide energy supply guarantees, reliability, lower prices and lower emissions, and even meet our Paris Agreement commitments. If this policy is so good and it's so obviously the solution in front of us, why has it taken five years for the government to deliver it to this place?

I'll tell you why: this is a half-arsed policy designed to save Mr Malcolm Turnbull's political bacon. This is not designed to provide reliable power. This is not designed to provide cheaper power. This is not designed to lower emissions. This policy is a compromise with the far right in the LNP led by Mr Tony Abbott—and, may I say, don't stop there. That's still quite a shallow interpretation, because Mr Tony Abbott and the far right, and our friends in the National Party, have been running a pro-coal agenda, an agenda to subsidise coal to keep dirty, uneconomic coal-fired power stations going for another reason. If you'd gone out and listened to the One Nation press conference the other day, you'd have seen what that reason was. This half-arsed energy policy won't meet our Paris Agreement commitments and that will increase uncertainty in the long-term investment horizons that are necessary for us to continue to roll out renewable energy, something that we know is popular in Australia. We know it will create jobs. We know it will reduce emissions. But that doesn't matter. This is actually about solving a political problem for Mr Malcolm Turnbull.

Don't just take it from me. An excellent article in The Conversation today by John Quiggin, professor in the School of Economics at the University of Queensland, said:

The most important thing to understand about the federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee is that it is designed not to produce a sustainable and reliable electricity supply system for the future, but to meet purely political objectives for the current term of parliament.

Those political objectives are: to provide a point of policy difference with the Labor Party; to meet the demands of the government’s backbench to provide support for coal-fired electricity; and to be seen to be acting to hold power prices down.

It really makes me sad, angry and frustrated after my party has been campaigning in here for 10 years to get a proper policy to tackle climate change, which is a price on carbon. Even the Grattan Institute, which has been fairly glowing in its support for this policy, this NEG, said this morning that a price on carbon is the best policy, that this is second rate and that, in fact, there would be no need for emissions intensity guarantees or reliability guarantees if we had a price on carbon. We brought that in nearly 10 years ago. We campaigned and we got it legislated after 2010—gold standard, the world's best climate package, with a price on carbon and money allocated to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA and the Climate Council to drive innovation and investment in renewable energy. We were on our way. We were on our way to do more than meeting our Paris targets. We were global leaders in action on climate. How sad and embarrassing that we have slumped to where we are today!

For five years we've had policy chaos. We've had uncertainty in business investment. Even the coal-fired power companies have been calling for the government to get its act together. But it took a speech from Mr Tony Abbott to trigger this policy that we have before us today. Well, we are going to need detail. We're going to need detail on how the emissions intensity scheme within this is going to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. We are going to need detail on how the NEG is going to be integrated into our NEM, our wholesale network, and how Western Australia and the Northern Territory are going to be brought under this scheme. We're going to need details.

It's just not good enough that the government would come out with such a big policy announcement with absolutely no detail on how it is going to work. That's not going to solve the problems with business uncertainty on investment. And we're going to need details on how we're going to meet our Paris Agreement commitments when we go back to the COP21 negotiations and the global economies agree on the further cuts in emissions, the reductions, that are necessary to tackle dangerous global warming. And we have got this half-arsed, half-baked policy in front of us here today. It's just not good enough. It's not good enough for future generations of Australians. We should do better.

The Greens' matter of public importance today is:

The link between the Government's collapse in public support and their hostility towards clean energy, their delusional pro-coal agenda, and their steadfast refusal to embrace progress.

My favourite thing about the Greens' MPI today is not their typical economic illiteracy; it's not their expected over-the-top environmental ideology; it's not even their antihuman, antitechnology lunacy. It's the fact that the Greens, who normally confine themselves to providing policy advice to the government, through this chamber and elsewhere, have now decided that they want to get into the business of providing political advice to the government. Not content with their unsuccessful attempts to try and influence the government's policy agenda, they're now trying to teach us a thing or two about politics.

I'm a little bit surprised by this, because presumably what the Greens want us to do, and what they think is to the government's political benefit, is adopt their environmental policies and their economic policies, and, presumably—given that they think that our current policies have led to a collapse in public support—they think that that public support would soon return and we would soon receive a boost in the polls. There is just one little unfortunate fact about the Greens and the political advice that they offer us, and that is that, presumably, if we were offering the policies of the Greens, we would receive the same amount of political support the Greens do. In the most recent Newspoll, published on Monday, the coalition's primary vote was recorded at 36 per cent. To be sure, all coalition members would like that number to be higher. But also on Monday in the Newspoll, the Greens' primary vote was recorded at 10 per cent. So a political party with a 10 per cent support in the polls is offering political advice to a party with more than three times its political support in the polls. I don't think that the government will be rushing to take up the Greens' political advice.

They shouldn't be disappointed, though, because, in a funny way, the government is following the Greens' policy advice for once. We've listened to them very carefully and to all they have said on energy policy, particularly on the merits of renewable energy. We've taken them at their word, and we've gone to the only possible logical conclusion from their advice. Their advice has come in the form of comments such as this by Adam Bandt in September 2017 when he said:

… it is now cheaper to build renewables than it is to build … coal.

It also came in the form of comments back in November 2015 by the Greens' leader, Senator Di Natale, who said:

It's cheaper now to build wind power than it is to build coal-fired power and … it'll soon be cheaper to build solar as well.

They're not the only people offering this advice. Renewable energy advocates tell us so. Kane Thornton, the CEO of the Clean Energy Council, in May 2017, said:

Renewable energy is now the cheapest kind of new power generation that can be built today—less than both new coal and new gas-fired power plants.

The opposition leader, Mr Shorten, says:

Renewable energy is the cheapest form of new electricity generation.

So I don't understand why the Greens or, indeed, the Labor Party would be disappointed that, having heard their expert advice and opinions on these issues—we have listened carefully—we have taken them at their word and we are now acting on it. Because if they're right—if it is indeed now cheaper to build new renewable energy than it is to build new coal or new gas or other forms of energy production—then all the system of subsidy, support and assistance that the renewable energy sector has received in this country, particularly over the last decade, is now no longer necessary. If they're right and it is cheaper, then the market will decide, and the market will decide in favour of renewable energy. You don't need to force anyone to build new renewable energy—you don't even need to incentivise them to do so—if it is indeed true that renewable energy is, in fact, cheaper than alternative sources of energy.

So all the government has done is accept the advice provided by the Greens, the Labor Party and the renewable energy industry and announced a new policy which finally calls time and draws to an end the era of subsidies for energy—for renewable energy in particular, which has been most generously subsidised over the past decade. We know, for example, that the renewable energy target has been a spectacularly generous form of subsidy for the renewable energy industry. It has been dubbed—I think very appropriately—this week by the Prime Minister and the environment minister as industry policy masquerading as energy policy or environmental policy, because the truth is that this policy was devised and expanded particularly spectacularly under Kevin Rudd's time as Prime Minister as a means of supporting the growth of an industry for industry policy reasons, not really for environmental policy reasons. We know the renewable energy target is in fact a very expensive form of carbon abatement and not a very efficient way of reducing carbon emissions, if that is your major objective.

The renewable energy target will peak in 2020 and come to its natural end in 2030, and it won't be extended by this government. It won't be replaced by this government by any other form of mandate such as the clean energy target, as suggested by some. Instead, it will be replaced by a new policy which puts an appropriate emphasis on two of the other major priorities of energy policy and the things which this government believes should be the top priorities of energy policy: first and foremost, reliability; and, second, affordability.

At the same time, of course, we want to meet our commitments made at the Paris climate change conference to reduce our emissions by at least 26 per cent from 2005 levels, and we are very confident that we will reach that under this policy. We're confident because this policy ensures that there will be continued investment in newer, lower-emissions technology, and we're confident because we believe in technological progress. We believe in innovation. We believe in the wonderful entrepreneurs in the renewable energy sector and elsewhere who are devising new and better ways to produce energy with lower emissions, who don't need subsidies, assistance or intervention by government to ensure that that technology is delivered and rolled out. As we have heard from the Greens, renewable energy advocates and the Labor Party, it is now cheaper to do so.

But a real strength of this policy is that it takes a genuinely agnostic approach towards different sources of reductions in emissions. The truth is the planet doesn't care if those reductions in emissions come about by rolling out a wind farm, rolling out a solar farm, or replacing an old, inefficient, outdated coal-fired power station with a new, more efficient coal-fired power station that has lower emissions. All the planet notices is the reduction in emissions. Indeed, it's true that you can build a new high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station, including using brown coal in my home state of Victoria, that can reduce emissions from older, out-of-date power stations by up to 40 per cent. A 40 per cent reduction in emissions should be something that everybody who cares about this policy area would welcome. We shouldn't be dogmatic about how the emission reductions come about if our genuine objective is just to reduce emissions. That's why I'm really encouraged by the new policy adopted by the government this week.

I want to finish on one final point. The Greens have accused the government of in this case being unwilling to embrace progress. I've just pointed out how the Greens are unwilling to face progress if the progress happens to be in the form of new, more efficient coal-fired power generation. But, of course, that's not the only area where the Greens are opposed to progress. In fact, you could easily call the Greens an antiscience party, because the Greens are so often against scientific progress if it doesn't fit with their environmental ideology. Coal-fired power stations with new technology are one example of that. Another example of that is genetically modified crops, of which my new colleague from Western Australia, Senator Brockman, spoke about so eloquently this week. It is innovations in agriculture such as the invention of golden rice which have allowed massive productivity gains in agriculture and farming, allowing enormous increases in output that are helping to feed the world better than we have ever been able to feed it before. Of course, the Greens have fought and opposed it every step of the way.

They're opposed to nuclear power. They have irrational fear and hatred of nuclear power and they believe that that's a dangerous technology. It's another example of progress that they oppose. They're even opposed to the harvesting of gas resources, if they're done in new, modern ways, like so-called unconventional coal seam gas extraction, which is working very well in Queensland and which is being used all around the world, particularly in the United States. Indeed, the success of the United States in reducing its emissions, despite the fact that the administration has pulled out of the Paris climate agreement, has come about largely because the US has transitioned to a much heavier use of gas, which produces lower emissions than some alternatives. That has come about because of the shale gas revolution, which, of course, does rely on unconventional means of accessing it. So, it's not the coalition Turnbull government that's opposed to progress; it is the Greens.

It is sometimes said that amateur psychological diagnoses tell you as much about the person who is making the diagnosis as they do about the subject. I think the same could often be said for the topics the Greens dish up for MPIs. It is telling that a day after a major policy announcement the Greens have given us an MPI not about policy but about the government's polling numbers. It's suggestive of a world view that sees climate change and energy as a campaign issue rather than as a policy issue—a strategy that would prefer to wedge than to achieve outcomes—and I find that disappointing. I've spent perhaps 20 years working, in one way or another, on environmental policy, and that's not how I see climate or energy.

I don't want to talk about the government's polling numbers, as difficult as they are. The government has dished up a vague, light-on-detail plan for energy, and I want to talk about that instead. Here are three big questions that I think the government needs to answer before the rest of the country can take this energy plan seriously. Big question No. 1 is this: where are the emission cuts going to come from if not from the electricity sector? The plan seems to be built on the idea that the electricity sector will do its share of abatement. But the problem with that is that the sector can make reductions far more economically and efficiently than other sectors in the economy. The government would know this, if it had done any modelling—which it acknowledges it hasn't. Every other exercise, every other detailed government study that's been undertaken by the Treasury to model the approach that we'd take to cost-effectively reduce carbon has shown that the electricity sector is one of the most important places where we can make cost-effective emissions reductions and make sure that the transition to a low-carbon economy is as cost effective as it possibly can be.

The question we have to ask is this: if there is only, say, a 26 per cent target applied to the electricity sector, where does the rest of the burden land? In the absence of any government modelling or analysis or public information, we can rely on other people like RepuTex, a very important group of analysts. They say that if a 26 per cent target was applied across all sectors of the economy then the modelling indicates the burden to reduce emissions would fall disproportionately on the direct combustion of oil and gas and transport sectors, Australia's emissions growth areas. These sectors would be liable for 31 and 32 per cent of all emission reductions to meet the 2030 target despite only making up 17 and 18 per cent of all emissions. Comparatively, the electricity sector would contribute only 20 per cent of all abatement. In other words, under the government's plan, according to this analysis—and we're waiting to see any government analysis—we won't reach our Paris targets unless there are deep cuts in emissions in other sectors. What's all this going to mean? What will it mean for workers in the manufacturing sector? What will it mean for workers in the transport sector? What will it mean for workers in mining? Or, is the government going to abandon the commitment to the Paris targets? These are questions the government needs to answer.

The government rhetoric about the price impact of this has all been very certain, and that's the big question No. 2: what impact will this have on prices?

The experts, Dr Schott and Mr Pierce, have been relied on by the government for this idea that this is going to save households $115 a year. But when you ask the experts, Dr Schott last night on television said, 'I don't think anyone can guarantee a price reduction,' and Mr Pierce acknowledged that it really just depended on which scenario you were talking about and that in some scenarios you see a much, much smaller price reduction per year for households. The third big question—and perhaps the most important one—is: how long will it be before the government is going to have to capitulate or backflip on elements of this policy to appease the conservative hard Right in its party room?

This plan is clearly half-baked. It needed much more time in development. It needed time for proper modelling. What we've been presented with isn't actually a policy. It's a high-level internal summary that you might write before you go off and do the work to produce a real policy. Year 12 students all across the country are sitting their HSC exams right now. If one of them handed in this plan as part of their assessment, they would be asked, 'Where is the rest?' In truth, this is nothing more than a bunch of ideas that are going to be 'worked up', in the language of the minister, in the lead-up to COAG. The Prime Minister has claimed it was developed by the Energy Security Board, but that entity was only formed in September. Why has the government served up a half-finished plan? I'll tell you what I think: they couldn't afford another week of the member of Warringah talking about energy policy and the government not actually having a response.

Former Prime Minister Abbott has had far more success controlling the political agenda from the backbench than he ever had in office, and that is a consequence of the weakness of this Prime Minister. What we see in response to all of this is a political fix for an internal political problem. It is about isolating and fixing the problem of the former Prime Minister, and it is not about solving the energy crisis that they've allowed to develop on their watch.

The coalition don't have strong views about whether or not this is a good policy solution. They actually don't care. This is a good political solution, and they will presumably be willing to change it, to gut it or to abandon it when the former Prime Minister moves the goal posts on the current Prime Minister once again. It's what we've seen on every other occasion. It's what happened on the ETS. It's what Mr Abbott did to him on the EIS—remember that? Mr Frydenberg came out and said, 'I'd be willing to consider it,' but within 24 hours he was forced to retract that. He said, 'Oh, no, we're not considering it.' It's certainly what happened to the clean energy target, the CET—remember that? It's also what happened on the RET.

We now understand, with quite some precision, how the life cycle of the Prime Minister's policy ideas work. There is a day or two of a media sugar hit. It feels pretty good and people perk up a bit. Then we all start to hear the gentle hissing sound as the air escapes from the balloon and the responsible minister, in this case poor Mr Frydenberg—for whom I do feel some sympathy—is left holding the policy. It's my prediction that this energy policy will go the same way.

Back in 2004, the writer Ron Suskind interviewed an unnamed White House aide. He later identified that aide as Karl Rove. It's one of my favourite quotes, because I think it really defines the mindset of conservatives in politics at the moment. Mr Suskind wrote:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." … "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

It's a very muscular approach to politics, isn't it—a very arrogant belief that you can escape the gravity of facts. But I'll tell you what you can't escape. You can't escape gravity, and you can't escape facts.

This government has decided to avoid the judicious study of discernible reality. In fact, it seems to hold contempt for reality, for the trends that are emerging globally in energy policy. After years of ignoring the problems in Australia's energy sector, the government has just acted—no modelling, no planning, no consultation. I'll tell you what. It didn't go that well for Karl Rove, and I doubt it will for this Prime Minister either.

The key function of being a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia is to listen. This morning I retweeted a quote from a self-styled energy activist, Mr Luis Aramburu, who boldly and correctly said:

The green fringe is against:

Coal

…

Natural gas

Nuclear

and even hydro. What do they want? The starvation of most of humanity?

Mr Aramburu sums up the Australian political landscape so clearly. This country is being consumed by the green fringe, contrary to what people want, and that is the real reason political parties are sliding. We see that at both state and federal level and in the churning of government. The truth behind poll numbers is that both the ALP and the LNP are sliding, not just the LNP. The ALP's primary votes are dwelling in the low 30s. Why? Why are numbers so low?

The reason is that Australian political parties have taken a lurch to the left, abandoned Australian values and trashed common sense, becoming destroyers of humanity, not builders of humanity. Parties have embraced Marxism, and everyday Aussies have had a gutful. No new dams and no new coal-fired power stations are being built. Gas is off the radar, and we won't consider nuclear. Instead, successive governments have relied on the hope and prayer of the sun shining or the wind blowing, and our economy is now paying the price.

The current ruin of our economy shows why the political parties are suffering with poor poll numbers. It is the opposite to the picture painted by this Greens motion. The secret to increasing poll numbers, as history shows, is not to embrace more whacky-backy Greens tripe but to repudiate it, cast it aside, reject it and denounce it. In its place, we should suggest a progressive view of humanity that hopes for and relies on the best of society, a vision of where we once were, a proud nation, united under one vision to build a successful future based on jobs for everyone in a safe and secure society.

We can only build this type of vision that unites Australians when we listen to what Australians need. People tell us they need cheap power, yet not everyone in the chamber is—in fact, few are—apt to be listening. For example, Senator McGrath came into the chamber recently and carried on about where Liberal Party senators live across Queensland, as if that mattered. For what it's worth, Liberal senators could live on the moon, because, from what we see, it doesn't matter where LNP parliamentarians live; they still don't listen to rural and regional Queenslanders around them.

If the Liberals and Nationals listened to people, they would realise that Australians and Queenslanders want the renewable energy target dumped now, not in three years when electricity prices have doubled as a result of the new policy. They want it dumped now. If they would listen, they would learn that people are worried about electricity prices and that to focus solely on reliability instead of price is folly. When the process of delivering a service is improved, the reliability of that service goes up, and the price of that service goes down. We need to work on the process. What we are doing here with this government, this opposition and the Greens is tinkering with the fundamentals and destroying it.

The Greens created a problem that doesn't exist to force action that's not needed. In their rush for seeking Greens preferences, both the LNP and the ALP have fallen for the climate con and now the energy con. Instead of relying on unsupported opinions, we must base policy on solid data that will withstand scrutiny. Human progress depends on cheap energy. That has been shown for 170 years. Now, in the last 10 years, we have reversed that. One Nation's message to Senator McGrath and the general body politic is clear: to win votes and reduce the cost of power, take action today. We can come over to your office, Senator McGrath, and give feedback we've heard from Queenslanders as we travel around our state. Our door is always open, as should be everyone's in this chamber.

I have to say to my good friend Senator Roberts: you are nothing if not consistent. You've come into this chamber consistently, you've had a consistent view and you've maintained that view. I don't believe anything I say or do will be able to change your view. Nonetheless, I will give it a go because we live in hope, Senator. I hope that by the time you leave this Senate your views on this issue will have evolved and changed. I suspect by next week they won't have.

Was that a valedictory speech?

I'll take that interjection. The interjection was, 'Was that a valedictory speech?' I don't believe it was. I understand the tradition for valedictory speeches is they are not cut off at 20 minutes. I believe it will be an exciting four or five hours when and if Senator Roberts delivers a valedictory speech in this chamber. He will take some of the Americans on for time.

What we have seen is a government that will hold, and has held, every single different possible position when it comes to the issue of climate change and the issue of tackling the energy crisis that Australia is facing. It is true that any pressure or ability to lower prices is something that should be welcomed, but I just want to say that the gap between what has been promised and what is being delivered by this government is astronomical. Again, while people under financial pressure should welcome and do welcome anything that's going to make their lives better, let's put this in perspective.

We heard Senator Brandis refer to the government's own experts yesterday. The government's own experts came out overnight and were talking about something in the vicinity of 50 cents a week being saved—50 cents a week! I said this morning that this is soft serve savings. This is enough money to buy a soft serve ice cream. Actually, I have to correct the record: it's not enough to buy a soft serve ice cream. A soft serve ice cream at McDonald's is now 60 cents—it's not even 50 cents any more. I'm as shocked as you are, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams! I can see it in your face. That's where things are at after the big promise and the big process we've gone through. The government has held every single position at a different point in time and the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has done the same.

Just a few weeks ago, we were told by the Prime Minister that a clean energy target—these were the Prime Minister's own words—'would certainly work'. They were the Prime Minister's own words. The minister, Mr Frydenberg, from the other place, told us that a clean energy target would reduce electricity prices. He went on to say that Dr Finkel has shown his mechanism is to reduce emissions and, increasingly important today, ensure the stability of the system as it undergoes dramatic change. The recommendation at the heart of the Finkel process and at the heart of the Finkel report, was this idea that we were going to have a clean energy target. It's not good enough for the government to say 'we adopted everything else'. The government adopted all the easy stuff, and the one that was going to make the most significant difference, the clean energy target, was the one part of the process that wasn't adopted. Just in the last parliamentary session, we were told that the answer to Australia's energy needs was to keep the Liddell power station open, a coal-fired power station; words that, surprisingly, in this session of parliament don't even pass their lips. In the last session of parliament, it was all about Liddell, Liddell, Liddell. Now, it's not. It sometimes feels strange to be on this side of the chamber, arguing some of these points when normally these are arguments made by those on the other side of the chamber. The idea that a commercial company makes a commercial decision not to go ahead with a power plant for the sole reason that they don't believe it's in their commercial interests to do so, and to have a centre-right government turn around and say 'no, they should be forced to keep it open' because of ideology, when the economics of it aren't even stacking up, is, I think, somewhat concerning.

The problem with the government's energy politics is they just haven't caught up with the reality that is the future of energy economics. Let's remind ourselves: 10 years ago, there was a bipartisan consensus over the need for an emissions trading system of some kind and for climate action—10 years ago that consensus existed. Under Prime Minister Howard and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Turnbull—that's right, the same gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Australia, and Mr Howard was the Prime Minister then—the political contest was about which party would do more on climate change. This was in the lead-up to the 2007 election. Within 10 years, Australia has some of the world's highest power prices and some of the world's worst pollution per capita.

I want to touch on the issue of the clean energy target, because I think the Finkel report really outlined the significance of having a holistic approach that looks at including these types of measures. The Finkel clean energy target renewables would have been around 42 per cent of our total generation—42 per cent of our total generation. Mr Finkel—as I know you are aware is the Chief Scientist and about as nonpartisan as one can be—recommended a clean energy target because it would keep power prices lower, cut pollution and create jobs in renewables. Yesterday, the PM not only turned his back on his own Chief Scientist and a clean energy target that had the support of groups across the community but also on the renewable energy industry. The future of energy innovation and science in this country has paid for the forfeit of the coalition party room troglodytes. The Prime Minister has come up with a policy that will strangle renewable energy investment in jobs in this country and, instead, has embraced former Prime Minister Abbott's vision of where to head on these matters. The Prime Minister has, in his very typical way, gone with the worst possible option, walking away from a clean energy target. And what has happened as a result of this? Investors are in the lurch. As much as the government likes to pretend that somehow there has now been some certainty created, no certainty has been created by a haphazard policy that has simply been reached in a bid to settle the quarrels within the conservative side of politics. It's left investors in the lurch, it's certainly left business in the lurch, and it's made the job for Australia of reducing our emissions much more difficult.

The Finkel review noted that, even under the chaotic business-as-usual scenario modelling by Finkel, renewables would have made up nearly 40 per cent of generation capacity. Under the government's plan announced yesterday, renewables will make up just 28 per cent of power generation in 2030 and 36 per cent under the most optimistic proposal that can be put forward. Indeed, there may be no additional renewable energy capacity built beyond what is driven by the existing renewable energy target, which will cease in 2020.

We, on this side of politics, have been offering bipartisan support to the government for months on proper energy policy. Suddenly, without proper notice, we are expected to support the latest thought bubble from the government, without modelling and without appropriate research. The government doesn't want to have bipartisanship on this issue. They don't want to have that. What they want to have isn't a settlement across Australia; they want desperately to find a settlement within their own party.

Just to touch on what a Labor government would do and what a Shorten Labor government would do: there is a recognition that we have to modernise the energy market laws to give more power to consumers and we have to create renewable energy zones to drive investment. We need to change the Clean Energy Finance Corporation investment return benchmark so they can invest in more generation and storage projects. And, while the government is so tied up fighting with itself and blaming everyone else, Labor has to focus and will continue to focus on a positive alternative to tackle power prices. I thank the Senate for debating this issue.

I would like to kick off where Senator Dastyari started. I look forward to that very constructive, positive alternative approach to bringing down power prices, because to date I have seen nothing. I have seen a history lesson—raking over the coals of history; pardon the pun—in this debate. There has been talk of every position the government has had when it comes to energy policy, focusing on the past rather than actually talking about what they would do as an alternative government as the people who aspire to sit on this side of the chamber. It's all about history; it's not about the future, it's all about division and political pointscoring. It is not about solving the issues that face the Australian community.

After sitting here for the last 20 minutes or so, one interesting observation I can make is that with Senator Roberts on one side saying our policy does not go far enough and on the other side and at the other end of the spectrum Labor and the Greens saying we don't do enough, maybe we have some balance there. Maybe we are approaching things the right way in the interests of the majority of Australians, people who pay power bills and who are struggling to pay those power bills. The point I want to make is this: it's all about certainty. It is about providing that environment of certainty for those who generate the electricity, the market players. They need to be able to invest their money with some certainty so we can plan for the future. It's about having a reliable energy source. It's about having certainty, and knowing that when we flick the switch the lights are going to come on, the factory can start operating at 6 am or whenever it opens up and the jobs are going to be there. It is also about certainty about the price, that we are not going to see incredible increases into the future.

My colleagues have gone over history a little bit already. Every time we talk about energy, I like to talk about a bit of history from my perspective. In my home state of Tasmania, there is a great publication known as the Hobart Mercury newspaper. They published an article on 20 October 1981, a little while ago, entitled 'Coal-fired power best option'. It was written by a gentleman by the name of Wayne Crawford. It says: 'Tasmania's environmental lobby has expressed preferences for coal-fired thermal power generation over construction of more hydro power dams. The director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Dr Bob Brown, said yesterday that if there was to be a new power station, then coal-fired thermal was the best centralised option we have.' He then went on to say, that the conservation movement regarded a coal-fired thermal station as 'manifestly better than more dams.'

Later on in the article, it talks about cutting back the consumption of power, because that's the answer. It is not about catering to the demands of a growing society where we have more people living in our communities. It is about cutting back on demands. Dr Brown said, 'The environmental movement believed that if Tasmania's electricity's consumption now'—at that point in time, 'is the highest per capita in the world, it could be cut back by 15 per cent through an energy-saving program.' There would also be no need for new power schemes. I'm not a big fan of that idea. Given the way the world is going, with the demands society has, increasing technology and the like, we should be catering to those demands, and we can. We have the resources, we have the technology, we should be catering to it.

Later on in the article, it says that the coal-fired power station would 'provide more jobs over a longer period' and could be built more quickly than a hydro scheme and would give the state more flexibility in its power generation. I won't go on about that too long but I think it is great to just reflect on that a little bit. It was the former Australian Greens leader, former Senator Bob Brown, who was being talked about earlier today by my good friend and colleague over there, who advocated for more coal-fired power stations and no more renewable energy in the form of hydro power. It was only a year or two later that we had the Franklin Dam dispute, which saw halted the construction of a dam which would have saved Tasmania the energy woes that we went through a couple of years ago. But, as I say, that's all history.

Going back to the question of certainty—giving energy certainty around the investments they can make, having the ability to know that we will have dispatchable base-load power when it is needed—I heard Audrey Zibelman say that the current situation is not sustainable if we are to actually tackle the cost of power. When we look at situations like the one we had in South Australia and other situations on the National Electricity Market—where demand is far outstripping supply with intermittent renewables—the options for the market operator, Ms Zibelman, to pursue are limited. She pointed to gas-fired power generation and the high cost attached to that, and she used the words that this was 'the most inefficient way of doing it'. So Ms Zibelman, being one of the contributors to the policy, the plan that's been set out here that has been announced by the government, has found a way to provide that certainty. I think that is a great thing.

I want also to talk about the issue of cost—the savings that have been discussed here and the aim of bringing down the price of power. The Energy Security Board has indicated to us that the savings could be in the order of $100 to $115 a year. That's a lot of money. When the Community Affairs Committee considers things like reductions in welfare support, many on the other side of the chamber will point out that reductions of 50c cents or $1 in support payments to people make a massive difference when they have a stretched income. So why is it so bad to find a savings in one's power bill, even if it as little as Senator Dastyari and others have said—50 cents? They are the same people who in these debates say that the welfare reforms that have been proposed, which have resulted in some reductions to people who depend on those payments, will stretch the budget—but, no, we shouldn't pass on a saving in any shape or form when it comes to the household power bill!

I, like most other Tasmanians, have seen a massive increase in my power bills. It's not as big an issue for me as it is for many other Tasmanians. I happen to be a member of the Australian Senate and I'm paid very well—and that's on the public record. My winter-quarter power bill was $3,000. The more recent bill was $2,900—and I don't think that's because power prices have gone down; I think it's because I've been encouraging my three boys to turn the lights out more. But this is the thing: power bills are so significant in my home state, where we have largely renewables based energy generation. We have a plan to actually bring down the cost of power. We are talking about ways that will impact on the cost of power for households and for businesses. We will be able to continue to support businesses and manufacturing, so that people can pay their bills.

We talk about subsidies for renewable energy as well. Labor's plan would see $66 billion in subsidies paid to support renewable energy generation. Where does that come from? It comes from either the taxpayer or from energy users, the consumers. Someone is going to pay; this money doesn't just appear. And that's what Labor are proposing—unlike our plan, which removes those subsidies. Senator Paterson, earlier in the debate, highlighted the comments made by proponents of renewable energy. Coming from a state where renewable energy is generated as much as it is, it is great to hear that that it is one of the cheapest forms of energy in Australia. There is the case made to remove those subsidies. So why does the opposition cling to this need to prop up this sector of the energy generation industry with subsidies to the tune of $66 billion?

Yesterday, one of my colleagues from Tasmania, Senator Singh, claimed that that money should go to supporting the 28,000 jobs that could be developed in the renewable energy sector. That's a lot of money for each of those jobs. That is $66 billion of your money, Mr Acting Deputy President, either as a power user or as a taxpayer.

We do have a plan. My friends on the other side have, as usual, wanted to go over the history of how we arrived here, rather than being constructive and positive about the future—though I note Senator Dastyari did promise there would be a positive alternative approach taken by Labor when it comes to reducing the price of power. I look forward to that coming out in the near future while this debate is on foot, because we can't consider things in isolation. They are all inextricably linked—affordability, reliability and meeting our international obligations. (Time expired)

I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance discussion. The Prime Minister yesterday announced the government's new energy plan or policy. We don't have the details of it; we don't have the modelling. The Prime Minister wants us believe that perhaps this will save householders money—maybe 50c by the year 2020, if they're lucky. Of course, what we do know is that one of the best ways of reducing electricity prices is to help people put solar panels on their roofs and batteries in their backyards. If this were really about helping everyday Australians and small businesses to reduce their power bills, that's what this government would be doing. But, instead, the Turnbull government has taken the axe to the renewable energy sector.

I stand here as a very proud South Australian. Our state is the renewables state. The investment from the renewable industry into our state has been in the vicinity of billions and billions of dollars, with billions and billions to come if, indeed, the industry is able to get on with the job of providing clean, reliable and affordable renewable energy to customers, to householders and to businesses across the state. Hopefully, if we're able to have a properly built interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales, which we desperately need, we might also be able to export that green power interstate as well. But what we've had from the Turnbull government is just another attack on South Australians, on South Australian businesses, on our industry and on South Australian jobs.

Make no mistake, an ideological war within the Turnbull government—fuelled, of course, by the ghost of the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, lurking in the dark shadows, making problems and trouble for the Prime Minister—is why this policy is in place. This government is obsessed with doing everything it can to keep alive a dying coal industry. At a time when we are meant to be reducing pollution and cutting emissions, we have the Prime Minister of Australia, because he is scared of the antics of the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, wanting to prop up the coal industry. The last thing we should be doing is throwing good money after bad to fund more coal-fired power stations and even open the world's largest coalmine with Adani. Make no mistake, this policy announced by the government yesterday is more about a turf war inside the Liberal Party than it is about reducing the electricity bills of Australian households or doing anything to combat and deal with global warming and climate change and to reduce pollution.

We all know—the experts have said it time and time again—that the reason electricity prices are high in this country is that the big, old power companies have been price gouging and ripping off customers for years. They've been able to get away with it because the government have turned a blind eye. Now the government want to use taxpayers' money to give subsidies to coal power, throwing good money after bad and attacking the renewable energy industry on their way through. This will cost South Australians jobs—no doubt about it. This will cost South Australians investment money, and the Greens will do everything we can to stand up to this reckless, irresponsible and politically ridiculous plan from the government.

If you want to reduce electricity bills, help people put solar on their roofs and batteries in their backyards. That's the best way of ensuring that householders and small businesses can afford their renewable energy, and they also get to help the planet as well because it's clean, it's renewable and it's cheap. But this is an ideological war from the government, just as we've seen already today with their ideological obsession with beating up on the ABC. Today in this place the government tabled legislation from the deal they did with One Nation to take the axe to the ABC. This is a government that is obsessed with ideological warfare inside their own party room. It's Tony Abbott and the other right-wing nut jobs in the backbench of the Liberal Party—

Point of order. Excuse me, Senator Hanson-Young.

You can't take a point of order from the chair.

Sorry. My apologies. Resume your seat, Senator Hanson-Young. I bring your attention to the debating rules, on referring to those in the other place with respect. I have raised this many times. I ask you to take that in consideration when you speak for the duration of your time.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There is ideological warfare going on inside the Liberal Party, and it's between the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and his merry men, right-wing nut jobs on the backbench of the National and Liberal parties.

Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. Under standing order 193, you can't make imputations against those in the other place or here. It would be beneficial if you withdraw that statement you just made about those in the other place.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I'm happy to not repeat those words, but I don't understand how those who were involved in ideological warfare over right-wing politics are not right-wing nut jobs.

Senator Hanson-Young, repeating it doesn't help one bit.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Hang on. I'm speaking. I draw your attention to standing order 193, on showing respect to those in the other place as well as here. You may continue, but if you do it in future I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Is that clear? Continue.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. What we've got is an ideological war, and it is holding this parliament to ransom. We've got the government introducing legislation to cut the ABC, demanded by One Nation, and now we've got the government wanting to give taxpayer money to keep open coalmines and coal-fired power stations. It's an ideological war, and it's holding the parliament and the future of this country to ransom.

The Prime Minister's capitulation to the coal industry will be an unmitigated disaster for my state of Tasmania. This, on the face of it, takes the axe to the renewable energy target, which means that a number of new renewable projects that are in the pipeline in Tasmania will now have a business case that will be compromised or at least not as promising as it would otherwise have been. It means that Hydro Tasmania, the Tasmanian government owned electricity generation business, will lose a flow of renewable energy certificate revenue from 2030, and ultimately this will mean less renewable energy in Tasmania, fewer opportunities for Tasmanians, fewer jobs in Tasmania and less capacity for Tasmania to play a significant role in displacing coal-fired power from the national grid.

So it's an unmitigated disaster for Tasmania. It's an unmitigated disaster for the renewable energy sector in this country. And that sound we can hear—there it goes!—is the corks popping in the boardrooms of coal companies in this country.

The time for the discussion has expired.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is the Australian Hearing report for 2016-17. Australian Hearing is, of course, the very body that the government originally wanted to flog off, to privatise, and I am particularly glad that the government have changed their mind on that. Australian Hearing has received absolutely overwhelming support from people who have accessed its services, particularly parents of children who receive the excellent services from Australian Hearing. But I want, for the short time that I've got available, to concentrate on the work that Australian Hearing has been doing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and in particular for regional and remote communities.

Australian Hearing is the service provider for many Aboriginal communities. People have heard me speak in this place very often on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' hearing. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are disproportionately impacted by their hearing. Hearing has a direct impact on people's opportunities in life, and there is a direct correlation between hearing, Aboriginal people's hearing in particular, and the justice system. One of the assessments that was done around this issue was of Aboriginal people in the Darwin Correctional Centre, and 92 per cent of the Aboriginal people in that correctional centre had a hearing impairment or were deaf.

The association there is, in particular, because people are affected by otitis media. Young children get it. Very young babies, babies around three weeks old, can get it. This is then associated with a hearing impairment, which, if left unaddressed, affects their ability, their numeracy and literacy skills. If you have a hearing impairment, it affects your learning abilities. Your brain allocates the space to something else. So if Aboriginal children in particular don't get that support, because they're not identified as having a hearing loss, they end up going to school behind, not having developed their literacy and numeracy skills to the level of those of their peers, and they fall behind in school. It's quite a well-articulated process. That is why it is so important and why I, for one, fought so hard, along with many others, to ensure that Australian Hearing continued as an entity.

Australian Hearing do vital work in Aboriginal communities. I was pleased to note, in some of the statistics that they put out for 2016-17 about what Australian Hearing do, that they provided services to 4,944 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people under the age of 26. Of course, the community service obligation is for those under the age of 26. Again, I am significantly pleased that sometimes you see progress in this place, as when the government increased that age from 21 to 26 in response to excellent work that the community affairs committee did. Yes, I am blowing the trumpet of the community affairs committee in this instance because a number of positive things in terms of hearing came out of that, and one of those was to increase that age from 21 to 26 for young Australians. That represented 14.6 per cent of the total number of children and young adults who received services from Australian Hearing. Let's point out that the percentage of Aboriginal children in the population of Australia is much less than that, showing the disproportionate number of Aboriginal children who receive support because of the particular circumstances of Aboriginal children's hearing. So I'm pleased to see that there was an overall increase of five per cent in the total number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children seen. In my book, it is very important that we are seeing an increasing number of children because that means that more children are being treated. It's very important work that Australian Hearing does. I congratulate them for the work that they do. I want to see more and more effort put in to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's hearing, in particular, because it's so important, if we are going to address disadvantage, that we address that particular issue. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I would like to speak on the annual report of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for 2016-17, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The AAT is an independent statutory authority in this country, established by legislation of this parliament. One of the fundamentals of the rule of law, not only in our democracy in Australia but in democracies around the world, is freedom from capricious decision-making. The AAT, as part of the judicial and quasi-judicial system in our country, ought to be part of a truly independent decision-making process, which means ultimately that everyone who comes before the AAT or another arm of the justice system in this country is treated equally, and that's an absolute fundamental of the rule of law.

We know that this government has an ideological problem with the rule of law, and we've seen a significant erosion of the rule of law and a significant erosion of human rights and many other important rights under the tenure of this government. I'm ashamed to say that, in most cases, they've been backed in, in those erosions, by the Australian Labor Party in the parliament.

There is one particular piece of legislation—a piece of legislation which contains a number of amendments to various other statutes in this country—which highlights the ideological hatred of this government in regard to the rule of law, and in fact it set out deliberately to undermine the independence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, of course, being the subject of the annual report to which I am now speaking. That of course is the piece of legislation that was tabled in the House of Representatives and then passed through the House which firstly sought to give the minister for immigration, Mr Dutton, the capacity to unilaterally override properly-arrived-at decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That legislation also did things like, for example, seeking to introduce a tertiary-level English-language-test requirement for people to pass before they became citizens of this country.

We know that the Liberal Party has stacked the ranks of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with Liberal Party mates and, of course, that they cherry-pick cases and decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to give to tabloid newspapers in a deliberate attempt to smear the AAT's reputation. The legislation that passed through the House of Representatives and has been comprehensively rejected by the Senate today is, of course, Minister Dutton's citizenship legislation. This is a fantastic win for multicultural Australia because, of course, the immigration minister, Mr Dutton, tried to tear down multicultural Australia with this legislation, to tear down our open and harmonious society and to rebuild Australia in his own hateful image. It was a proposal to take steps down a dangerous road towards a White Australia policy that most of us thought and hoped we had left behind many decades ago.

Today Mr Dutton has failed. He wanted to stop thousands of men, women and children from feeling like they are full and permanent members of our community and to stop them from taking that step which would have helped them make such a massive contribution to our community as migrants have done through the history of our country. He failed because tens of thousands of Australians stood up against him and joined with many of us in this place to stand up for multiculturalism and fairness. It's a great day for multiculturalism in this country now that legislation has been rejected by the Senate and taken off the Notice Paper. What we have demonstrated together is that the things that unite us as a country are far, far greater than anything that might divide us.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

On behalf of Senator Sterle, I would like to present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the state of Australia's rail industry together with the Hansard record of proceedings and the documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the committee, may I just thank the committee members and Senator Sterle, who, of course, chaired the committee. I think it's demonstrated that this is a committee that works particularly well on behalf of this parliament. This report into the Australian rail industry showed that this is an area in which we're able to gather evidence and reach a unanimous decision in support of recommendations, which are before the chamber at the moment.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the committee secretariat for their hard work in producing this report. Can I in particular take this opportunity to mention the former Senator Back, who participated in this inquiry, and of course Senator O'Sullivan, who stepped into his place in terms of working through the issues, which has led to us being able to bring forward a unanimous report. I would also like to acknowledge Mr Glenn Thompson from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union for his fierce public advocacy of the industry and the need to take action on this issue.

The committee, as I said, has produced a unanimous set of recommendations, and, as I said, it's a great opportunity here in the Senate to provide advice to the parliament. I hope the major parties in this parliament are able to take up that advice and provide direction for future government programs. I trust that this will be a matter that will be discussed at the forthcoming election that happens whenever that occurs, and I am hopeful that we are able to take advantage of what's been a 17-month inquiry where we have seen very substantive numbers of submissions and very detailed public hearings.

We heard from over 30 witnesses from industry, from government and from unions. We heard from workers on the shop floor in the railway workshops across the country. Overwhelmingly, all the witnesses—no matter what different companies they represented or what aspect of the industry they represented—testified that action needed to be taken to preserve the strategic capabilities of Australian rail manufacturing.

We know that railways have been very much at the heart of our national politics for a very long time. We understand, for instance, that in colonial times the difference in the rail gauges was one of the reasons that the six colonies decided to federate as the Commonwealth of Australia. What's disappointing is that, some 116 years later, we still haven't resolved some of those big differences between the states, especially around issues of procurement.

The plight of rail manufacturing is akin, in my judgement, to the plight of shipbuilding in this country. It is absolutely essential that we build a sovereign, national capability in rail manufacturing, as we have sought to do in naval shipbuilding. Australia has 150 years of experience in design, manufacturing and maintenance of railways and rolling stock. But the railway manufacturing industry is now facing a valley of death similar to that which has loomed at various points in shipbuilding. The industry employs 5,000 workers, with some 7,000 workers tied up in the supply chain. There are 3,000 jobs that have regrettably been lost in the past decade. Job losses have been particularly severe in regional Australia, in places like Newcastle, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville, Maryborough in Queensland, Ballarat and Bendigo. In fact, we have also seen Maryborough in Victoria suffer as a result of the deterioration in the industry. It's essentially because there have been insubstantial numbers of contracts. Investment by the Commonwealth and states in passenger and rail projects is expected to exceed $100 billion in the next two decades. So there is absolutely no reason for this, given the scale of investment that we can anticipate will occur in this country, with regard to projects that are being undertaken both by the Commonwealth and by the states across the Commonwealth of Australia. That's actually greater than the national spend on the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, which is $90 billion over 30 years.

I notice that Senator Sterle is now in the chair. Of course, this is exactly the evidence presented to the inquiry.

The difference, of course, is that in rail manufacturing there has been a lock in on this boom-bust cycle because the procurement decisions made by state and territory governments over many years have not recognised the need to actually build a national market and a national approach to the development of our industrial capabilities. We have, in fact, a situation where the purchasing decisions are taken by state governments on the basis of a very fragmented approach—fragmented in terms of the training opportunities, fragmented with regard to the research and development that's occurring within the industry and, of course, very fragmented in terms of the purchasing. The purchasing power that comes from these various government contracts has been lost. That's not even to begin to consider what's happening in the freight area, where our major resource projects are relying very heavily upon the importation of very, very significant numbers of rail cars from imported sources. We have state governments that all too often look towards the purchase of rolling stock from overseas. They don't consider the issue of the whole-of-life costs of contract; they rather look at the very limited, narrow view. Of course, that undermines our capacity to develop a sovereign capability.

Industries like rail manufacturing just don't emerge in a vacuum. It takes a commitment from governments at all levels. It takes a commitment to plan, to ensure that we keep jobs and skills and capabilities here in this country, and that we develop the necessary supply chains, efficiencies and the skills of our people so we can actually enjoy the benefit of what is, largely, government procurement. Similar lessons apply to private procurement, especially in regard to the resources sector.

The Australian government must develop—this is the recommendation of this report, which was unanimously agreed to—a national rail manufacturing industry plan to maximise the benefit of the $100 billion investment that's expected to be seen in this country over the next two decades. The plan should include a mechanism to remove those peaks and troughs in demand to create certainty for manufacturers and to encourage the investment by companies in Australia to secure the future for employment in the industry and to secure the capacity in the industry so we can be competitive and produce the rolling stock that we actually need.

We've seen in recent times that much has been made in regard to the use of steel in railways. We've seen in cases in recent times where state governments have actually imported the very steel that's used for railways. It's simply a situation that is unnecessary and ought not continue. States and territory governments need to endorse the plan, and under the proposals advanced in this report there is an opportunity here to agree on methods of supporting and resourcing such a national approach. A national rail procurement strategy should be able to complement such a plan, and such a strategy would need to be coordinated through the procurement contracts of the states and territories consistent with our international trade obligations. It would allow for the development of the necessary capabilities, particularly for our small- and medium-sized enterprises, and it would mean that we could maximise local content in the manufacture of passenger, freight and light rail rolling stock. That includes, in my judgement, trams as well. That's consistent with the very position that's outlined in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and to ensure that we have the whole-of-life costs and quality examined, and also questions on innovation and environmental sustainability. Such an approach would require contractors to implement proper training programs for apprentices and engineering cadets. Such a method would also see us develop the necessary management of supply chains. I seek leave to continue my remarks. (Time expired)

Leave granted.

I also stand to support this very important report. I commend the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for the work that we've undertaken in bringing this report to fruition. I also want to commend Senator Carr for his advocacy and determination to have this really important subject put here and to have the outcomes of this report here for the Senate to consider.

The reason I think this is so important is because of the potential of the rail industry: the economic potential, the environmental potential and the social potential. We know that there is going to be a continued growth in rail across the country. There is $46 billion that's already there for rail projects that are going to occur and the $100 billion that can be mapped out over the next two decades. If you look at the direction—because of all the advantages—of rail, I would say that $100 billion is an underestimate, because we know that as part of shifting the way that we run our transport systems to a more sustainable future—in particular, decarbonising our transport systems—that rail has an incredibly important role to play.

So we can see the potential for future rail projects in suburban areas. We can see the potential of future rail projects connecting up regional centres. We can see the upgrading in systems in our interstate rail systems. We can see that there is cross-party support for the inland rail project. All of these sorts of project, whether passenger or freight, are becoming increasingly supported. There is increasing agreement across the political spectrum of the need to be having an increase in the amount of rail, both heavy rail and light rail. From the perspective of wanting to see increasing jobs, increasing employment, increasing economic activity and increasing attempts to reduce carbon pollution, rail has obviously got an incredibly healthy future.

There's the potential, but what do we need to do to realise that potential? That's where this report has really outlined what needs to happen. In particular, it has outlined the role of the Commonwealth and the role of national governments to be able to play a coordinating role and to bring together the investments that will be made by state governments. One of the factors, when you are looking at transport across the country, is that so many the decisions get made at a state level, so they can be made in isolation from each other. But the Commonwealth can play such an important role in getting the states working together so that we can be maximising that potential. As the evidence presented to our inquiry pointed out, where we can get uniformity, where we can get some states talking to each other and agreeing on some uniform standards, we can really move forward in getting the local industry to be building up an industry that can fulfil the delivery of parts of the rail industry, whether it is rolling stock, whether it's the rails—everything to do with the rail industry. The need for a national rail plan underpins that—and from that plan, having the procurement strategy. The national procurement strategy is going to be a difficult job. It will be difficult to get all of the different players in the same room and say: 'Okay, let's nut out what this procurement strategy is, so we can really maximise the potential of the industry. How do we maximise the economic benefit, maximise the amount of local content, maximise the amount of jobs, and maximise the amount of training opportunities involved in amplifying the amount of rail that's in the country?'

I am hopeful that—the committee having done the work and presenting this report today—it will really be a landmark that will enable us to move forward so that we can then agree that the future for rail has got so much potential that can be realised. I am hopeful about having the Commonwealth involved in a plan, in a strategy, and getting the states to endorse that strategy. I know getting the states to work together with the Commonwealth can be tricky, but it can be done. And I think that, when the benefits are there and outlined for everyone to see—the potential of having a particular state that might specialise in a particular area and then be selling to the other states, bringing the states together to actually work through this—then the difficulties will be overcome. It will be such an important part of our economic activity in the country in the future. Very sadly, this week we are seeing the very final end of the car manufacturing industry in Australia. So we are looking at the landscape and thinking, 'Where are we going to have advanced manufacturing? What is the potential part of the economy where there is a realistic chance, not just pie-in-the-sky thoughts of where it's possible?' The rail industry is where it's possible.

This is particularly so because so much of the procurement is done by state governments. Where you've got governments, they've got the control to be able to say: 'Let's work together, let's do this sensibly, let's make sure we have really high-skilled local manufacturing here that will bring the jobs with it, that will bring the economic activity with it and that will enable us to meet our sustainability outcomes that we know will enable us to have that homegrown industry. The expansion of the rail industry for passenger and freight will enable us to shift our transport system to a 100 per cent renewable energy powered transport system that's based on a really thriving rail industry here in the country.

I really do commend this report to the Senate and I look forward to its recommendations being enacted. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present additional information received by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 13 of 2017.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I present Scrutiny Digest No. 12 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

Ordered that the report be printed.

On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the 2017-18 budget estimates, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the 11th report of 2017, Human rights scrutiny report.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In particular, I wish to take note of the particular area of recommendations on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The human rights committee has reported on previous bills that relate to the cashless debit card or, as other people call it, the cashless welfare card. I will go to the committee's response first, and then I'll go over some of the issues that they raise.

First off, the committee thank the minister for the response and say that they have concluded the examination of the proposed legislation. What they say in their response is:

2.276 The preceding analysis indicates that concerns remain as to whether the trial is effective to achieve its stated objectives.

2.277 The analysis further indicates that, based on the information provided, the measures may not be a reasonable and proportionate limitation on human rights.

2.278 Accordingly, noting concerns raised by previous human rights assessments of the trial and related concerns regarding income management identified in the committee's 2016 Review of Stronger Future measures, the measures may not be compatible with the right to social security …

I really emphasise 'the right to social security'. At the hearing we had into this bill in Kalgoorlie last week, some of our committee members—or, I should say, people who were participating in that inquiry; they were not members of the committee itself but they were members of this chamber—didn't even understand that there is a right to social services. It goes on to say:

… the right to privacy and family and the right to equality and non-discrimination. If the bill is passed, the committee will consider the human rights implications of the legislative instruments once they are received.

Of course, I hope that that bill does not pass this chamber, because I agree with the committee. In fact, I go further than the committee, but I agree that the bill is not a reasonable and proportionate limitation on people's human rights. This bill is draconian. It is top-down. It has negatively impacted on people who are affected by the card. The committee's report outlines the concerns that the committee has with this bill and also its previous assessments. It says:

The previous human rights assessments of the cashless welfare trial measures raised concerns in relation to the compulsory quarantining of a person's welfare payments and the restriction of a person's agency and ability to spend their welfare payments at businesses including supermarkets. These concerns related to the right to social security, the right to privacy and family and the right to equality and non-discrimination.

It says these bills 'engage' and 'limits these rights'. It also says:

While the committee previously accepted that the cashless welfare trial measures may pursue a legitimate objective, it raised concerns as to whether the measures are rationally connected to (that is, effective to achieve) and proportionate to their objective.

They then go on to their previous reports to look at the wave 1 interim evaluation of the card. They then look at what this bill proposes to do, which is, of course, to extend the cashless welfare card so-called trials in Kununurra and Ceduna to basically be limitless—so you can stop calling them trials, folks. This is the government implementing the cashless welfare card.

They are also proposing it for two other sites. One is Kalgoorlie and one is Hinkler. What they propose to do, of course, is to put people on income management. The human rights committee bells the cat and says it's income quarantining. The government keeps denying that it's income quarantining, but it is income quarantining. The government has other trials proposed for drug testing of people that are applying for income support. Given that this relates to our human rights committee, it's very interesting to note that the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights just today denounced Australia's plans to drug-test benefit claimants as a 'cheap shot at our most vulnerable'. Of course, what the government wants to do with drug testing is apply, as they first said, the cashless welfare card, but now they're being more general and saying the BasicsCard or income management. But this is what we're talking about here, folks. We are talking about income management, which the human rights committee is saying may not be compatible with the right to social security, the right to privacy and family and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. Here we have the special rapporteur saying:

If the real goal is to reduce the use of illegal drugs, why start with the poorest members of society?

As I said, it basically condemns this as a cheap shot at our most vulnerable.

It also comes at a time when our government has just got itself a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. At a time when we are also being assessed about whether we are being discriminatory against our first nations, here we have our human rights committee—the parliament's joint human rights committee—having a go at the cashless welfare card, which is a blatant go at our first nations peoples. That's where the card was rolled out in my home state—our home state, I should say, Acting Deputy President Sterle—of Western Australia in the East Kimberly and then, of course, in South Australia in Ceduna.

The government keeps saying they have proof of concept of this particular card. They wave around the wave 2 analysis of the cashless welfare card, or the debit card as it's also named. That report has so many holes you could drive a truck through it. For a start, the survey that they took to do this so-called analysis is push polling at its worst. Even the report itself acknowledges that the data in it is skewed. They conveniently leave out information on impacts on crime and impact on family violence and domestic violence. It's been unavailable.

Quite frankly, you need to be an expert on statistics to be able to look at the way they have manipulated some of the statistical data to try to prove their concept. If you look for the domestic violence figures, they're not there. Some of the people who had been trying to do the analysis of the ORIMA report had to resort to FOI to try to get access to those figures. They still haven't got them. Last week the superintendent of the police in the Kimberley, who was giving us evidence, talked about those figures, so we asked him for them. He said that he would provide them. If, in fact, they are provided, that will allow us to do some further analysis.

Yet here we have government saying: 'Here is proof of concept. We want to expand this trial.' They basically want an open ticket here, folks. Make no mistake about it. This legislation is an open ticket, quite frankly, to continue the program ad infinitum in Kununurra, the Kimberley, Ceduna and in the new areas the government wants to roll out the cashless welfare card to. Here we have government waving around this report—a report that is flawed and uses push polling, and where they managed to manipulate the numbers.

Minderoo Foundation gets those numbers and then gives them to members in this place, who blithely repeat them, ad infinitum again, doing exactly what the government wants them to do—on flawed data that does not show a drop in alcohol used across the trial areas. I think the government is trying to say there has been a 41 per cent drop in alcohol use. I think that's the latest figure that they're quoting. Quite frankly, that is absolute complete nonsense—to say that that's how much people have stopped drinking in the Kimberley and in Ceduna. That data is absolutely flawed, and the government know it. The government know they have a cooked-up analysis to try to encourage people to vote for their discriminatory, paternalistic, flawed legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Before I go to Senator Rice, I wish to go back to Senator Fawcett. You are on your feet, Senator Fawcett, but do you wish to incorporate the tabling statement?

I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech as follows—

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Senate Tabling Statement - Wednesday 18 October 2017

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 11 of 2017.

The role of the committee is to examine recent bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In doing so, the committee aims to enhance understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia and ensure that human rights issues are appropriately considered in legislative and policy development.

I note that a number of the bills examined in this report are scheduled for debate this week, including bills in relation to:

A number of the bills scheduled for debate were assessed from the outset as not raising human rights concerns, and others have been examined in more detail to assess compatibility.

More generally, in the current report, the majority of new bills considered – twenty – were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to four bills, and has provided a further four 'advice only' comments to legislation proponents.

This report also contains the committee's concluded examination of nine bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, the committee has concluded that three of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law.

This process of liaising with the legislation proponent to identify relevant information is an example of the benefit of the inclusive human rights scrutiny dialogue model. I encourage all legislation proponents when drafting statements of compatibility to draw upon any previous dialogue to ensure that the information that accompanies proposed legislation is comprehensive. Statements of compatibility accompany each piece of legislation that is tabled in parliament and contain the relevant minister's consideration of any human rights issues that may arise. These statements are critical to the work of the committee in its scrutiny task.

Finally, I note that the committee's work is one mechanism to encourage ongoing consideration of human rights in the development and passage of legislation. As announced today, Australia has been appointed to the UN Human Rights Council and will take its seat from

January 2018. I am sure that this will be another important space for Australia to engage with human rights issues at a global level.

I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 11 of 2017 to the Senate.

Debate adjourned.

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee, Participation of Australians in online poker, together with the Hansard of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I rise to speak on the online poker report. The online poker inquiry was instigated by me because the government had passed amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act without, I suspect, realising what it was doing in relation to online poker. While I disagree with the prohibition approach to online gambling in general, the ban on online poker is particularly egregious. The inquiry hearing was attended by me plus Senators Bernardi, Duniam and Whish-Wilson. I thank each of them for their interest in the subject and for their objectivity.

Senator Bernardi and I, as we said in the additional comments we submitted to the report, support the legalisation and the regulation of online poker in Australia. Online poker does not pose the risks of harm as other forms of gambling. There are a number of aspects to poker, including its online form, that make it inherently different to other forms of gambling. Poker is a peer-to-peer game, not one played against the casino or the house, thus there are no stacked odds by the casino or house requiring constant regulator scrutiny. It is a zero-sum game for the players, less any transparent, upfront fees that licensed hosts would have to competitively charge to cover platform provision costs. It involves players precommitting to the dollar amount they want to outlay or risk, helping to contain harm from excessive or addictive behaviour. It is relatively social and involves camaraderie and distinct groups, more often than not comprising males with full-time employment and above-average education and incomes. Over the medium term, poker is far more a game of skill and strategy than luck and chance.

The Productivity Commission agrees. In its 2010 Gambling report, the PC saw online poker as a valid first step to legalisation and regulation of online gambling in Australia, bringing it onshore so that players could be properly protected from unscrupulous platform providers and lack of regulatory standards. As the PC report goes on to demonstrate, in terms of the potential for deep or widespread harm and the degree of regulatory difficulty, if legalised, online poker is one of the most benign forms of gambling, posing few concerns relative to other forms, such as electronic gaming machines in pubs, clubs and casinos.

Indeed, the inquiry heard no evidence suggesting anything other than coincidence between poker and problem gambling. While some problem gamblers are known to play poker, problem gamblers also gamble in other ways well known to lead some into problem gambling.

The general principle here is that, rather than reflexively banning activities that include some risks and potential for harm, they can be legalised, regulated, monitored and of course taxed. The fact is that, as many submissions to the inquiry pointed out, banning the provision of online poker services within Australia will not prevent Australians from playing poker online. They will simply play on sites overseas where they are exposed to greater risk.

The government needs to simply get on with implementing the recommendations in the PC's 2010 report by legalising and regulating online poker. Online poker is unique. Participation and enjoyment are widespread. The risks of harm are low. And it is better to have it regulated and taxed onshore than driven underground or offshore. Other Western countries allow it, including the UK, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, plus various states within the United States. It is time that Australia's ban on and aversion to online poker also end.

Finally, when it comes to legalising it, the government should closely follow the model of the UK Gambling Commission. Its approach, which involves licences specific to each kind of gambling, enables it to address risks to gamblers, sport and consolidated revenue from gambling, in a logical and effective manner. It is relevant that the companies seeking to offer legal online gambling services to Australians also favour this approach. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present an interim report of the Red Tape Committee on the effect of red tape on environmental assessments and approvals, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report considers the issue of environmental regulation.

Ironically, the origin of the term 'red tape' is generally attributed to the 16th century administrative system of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, which used red tape for priority documents which required immediate action.

Given that red tape is now considered to be pernicious, corrosive and difficult-to-eradicate regulation, it seems highly appropriate that Charles V is more notable for his army spreading syphilis across Europe and thence to the rest of the world!

In its efforts to cure the Australian economy of its own administrative social disease, the Red Tape Committee has made a number of recommendations which we hope, not to mince words, will beat the clap out of environmental overregulation!

The committee's first recommendation responds to the many concerns expressed regarding the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The committee recommends the Australian government expedite its review as required under section 522A of that act, by bringing it forward to 2018.

The committee further considers the inclusion of uranium mining as a matter of national environmental significance in the EPBC Act is duplicative and unnecessary and recommends it be removed.

The committee noted that only three states or territories—Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland—permit uranium mining in their jurisdiction, and all have well-established assessment and approval processes to which Commonwealth involvement adds little value, if any.

In fact, duplication between the Commonwealth or states and territories was a major focus on the committee's inquiry.

Currently, states and territories conduct environmental assessments and propose conditions of approval which must then be approved by the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act.

This dual regulation perpetuates duplication, inconsistencies, high implementation costs and extended delays.

The Productivity Commission and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee have supported the establishment of a one-stop shop concept, and this is something that the Red Tape Committee strongly supports. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, provides a model by which this might be achieved.

On the question of the method of environmental regulation—

Senator Leyonhjelm, I might stop you there for a moment. Could you take your seat. Senator Bernardi, are you holding that file up for any particular reason? No? Okay. You may resume, Senator Leyonhjelm.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental—

A point of order, Senator Cameron?

Point of order. I think Senator Bernardi should remove that folder, consistent with the standing orders in this place.

Thank you. Senator Bernardi, it would be useful if you would.

I would highlight the rainbow folders saying 'love will win' on the Greens side that make their way into everything. There's nothing wrong with that. Mr Acting Deputy President, it would be extraordinarily inconsistent for you to rule that this is inappropriate when you did what you did yesterday.

I will take that on board. Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I will also ask you, Senator Rice, to take down your rainbow flag. We'll be consistent about this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Senator Bernardi, would you mind having a chat over there, please? I can't speak.

I think that is a very good idea, Senator Leyonhjelm. Thank you.

The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, provides a model by which this might be achieved.

On the question of the method of environmental regulation, witnesses urged Commonwealth, state and territory governments to adopt a risk-based approach. The Minerals Council of Australia, for example, argued that the increasingly risk-averse approach of governments has resulted in unnecessary and lengthy environmental assessments, whose information requirements have no regard to materiality or level of risk.

The committee learnt that, in contrast with this norm—

Sorry, Senator Leyonhjelm. A point of order, Senator Cameron?

Point of order. We have two senators sitting in close proximity to the speaker. I have got a problem hearing the speaker properly. Could you ask them, if they are going to speak, to actually leave the Senate or at least go to their own seats?

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I was relying on Senator Leyonhjelm to let me know if it was an issue, but I will ask senators, as a courtesy, to perhaps take your conversation outside the chamber if it's not necessary.

On the question of the method of environmental regulation, witnesses urged Commonwealth, state and territory governments to adopt a risk-based approach. The Minerals Council of Australia, for example, argued that the increasingly risk-averse approach of governments has resulted in unnecessary and lengthy environmental assessments, whose information requirements have no regard to materiality or level of risk. The committee learnt that, in contrast with this norm, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's Environmental Assessment and Management Risk Management Framework follows a risk-based approach. The committee supports the broader adoption of a risk-based approach as a means of reducing unnecessary, expensive and burdensome red tape.

COAG has previously agreed to explore adopting trusted international standards or risk assessment processes and the committee supports this approach, particularly using a risk-based approach—

I ask you to resume your seat. Senator Ruston and Senator Bernardi, I have asked you once to please go outside the chamber and remove your conversation.

A point of order.

Senator Bernardi, I will make this very clear, before I take your point of order. It is distracting to other senators in the chamber. They have brought that to my attention. I have asked you to take your conversation outside the chamber.

Just on your point of order, it wasn't distracting to the speaker who is in the closest proximity. I would make the point that, if you're not being a disturbance in the chamber, you are fully entitled to have a conversation, just as the minister and the Labor member of parliament is over there. The minister sitting close to you is unable to hear us, by her own volition. We are not being disorderly at all.

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. You can take your seat. I've made my ruling. It is being a distraction to other senators in the chamber. They've brought that to my attention twice. I am asking you to take your conversation outside the chamber. Senator Cameron, on the same point of order?

Yes, on the same point of order. I don't have any problem with senators having a discussion in their seats or at sufficient distance so that the speaker is not distracted and other senators are not distracted. It's highly unusual, in all the time I've been here, for a frontbench minister and a crossbencher to be sitting so close to a speaker, certainly at this time of night. It's just bizarre that it has to be done in that area. You've brought that to his attention, and you should—

Your point has been noted as a point of order. If you can, Senator Leyonhjelm, please resume. I'll watch it closely.

COAG has previously agreed to explore adopting trusted international standards or risk assessment processes and the committee supports this approach, particularly using a risk matrix based on international standards, with capacity to incorporate general and specific risks.

The committee found that environmental red tape heightens the potential for activists to challenge assessments and approvals, thereby imposing significant burdens on project proponents and job-destroying, economy-stalling roadblocks to developments. Efforts to sabotage the development of the Adani Carmichael mine in Central Queensland by environmental activists are a prominent example of this.

Resume your seat, Senator Leyonhjelm.

I've got to say to you, if a frontbench minister is not prepared to take any notice of a reasonable request from the chair, I think that's outrageous. A frontbench minister should have more respect for the chair than is being shown.

Thank you, Senator Cameron. Senator Leyonhjelm.

The IPA estimated that this anti-development—

Sorry, you're going to get very fit today by getting up and down, Senator Leyonhjelm. Can I ask you to resume your seat. Minister?

First of all, can I apologise to Senator Leyonhjelm for the distraction that has been caused to him while he has been trying to give his report on a very important document. Could I please draw to your attention, and the attention of the chamber, that I was not having a conversation when Senator Cameron called the point of order. I was sitting quietly in a chair at the other end of the chamber. Senator Bernardi was not speaking to me, and I wasn't speaking to Senator Bernardi. I ask you to draw to the attention of Senator Cameron that he's making a very frivolous point of order not based on fact.

That's not a point of order, Senator Ruston. Perhaps we should let Senator Leyonhjelm finish his speech. All show Senator Leyonhjelm the courtesy, and let him finish his speech.

That would be much appreciated. The IPA estimated that this 'anti-development activism' has caused delay and disruption valued at more than $1.2 billion over the past 17 years. Some projects never go ahead due to heightened risk of legal challenges and consequent higher capital costs.

The committee found that section 487 of the EPBC Act is clearly being misused. Given that other legislative and judicial processes already provide an avenue for legitimate appeal at the state/territory level, the committee recommends the government repeal this.

The committee also heard a range of concerns relating to the adverse effect of native title regulations on project developments, the manipulation of land councils by environmental activists, and the causal effect of this on the impoverishment of Aboriginal people.

Accordingly, as a means to materially assist both Aboriginal development and economic development more broadly, the committee recommends the government amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to remove the ability of land councils to arbitrarily veto applications for exploration and/or mining licences.

The committee also urges that Commonwealth, state and territory governments develop guidelines to assist with the clear identification of the costs and benefits of proposed projects to landowners and other stakeholders. That includes shared economic benefits such as royalties.

The committee identified that Queensland landholders received $238 million compensation as at 30 June 2015 for land access by the onshore gas industry. This clearly demonstrates the industry's ability to compromise with landholders, something which, according to the letter of the law, they do not have to do.

In particular, the committee urges that state and territory governments consider whether landowner royalties might facilitate environmental assessment and approval of projects.

The red tape committee found overregulation at the early stage of securing land tenure. Leasehold title in particular was identified as being a key problem for project proponents, with even more complicated regulatory pathways than freehold title.

In an effort to respond to these concerns, the committee recommended that state and territory governments review land access policy and identify opportunities to facilitate the conversion of leasehold title to freehold title. The committee also recommended that regulatory oversight of activities on leasehold land be removed, to put it on the same basis as freehold.

Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard again and again that environmental red tape is excessive and that, thanks to this, project approval processes are complex, convoluted and confusing.

The committee heard that the Roy Hill iron ore mine in the Pilbara required more than 4,000 licences, approvals and permits for its preconstruction phase. And the Adani Carmichael coalmine in Central Queensland spent seven years in the approvals process, fighting more than 10 legal challenges and having to prepare a 22,000-page environmental impact statement.

The Commonwealth government has previously pledged to make legislative amendments to clarify, simplify and streamline environmental regulation, but, like so many solemn commitments of our current government, this too has proved a fizzer.

No wonder Australia is ranked poorly by the World Bank in terms of the ease of doing business!

Environmental red tape is not a virtue, just because it has the word 'environment' in its name!

Like its venereal legacy of the great pox— (Time expired)

Senator Leyonhjelm, do you seek leave to continue your remarks?

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: Medical complaints process in Australia

October 2017

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (the Committee) report on the Medical complaints process in Australia. The Australian Government thanks the Committee members for their efforts in bringing to light the details surrounding workplace bullying and harassment in the medical profession, in particular the medical complaints process in Australia.

The bullying and harassment culture within the health sector must be taken very seriously. The community expects that the care they receive is safe and of high quality, and that the professionals delivering this care work within a respectful team environment.

All stakeholders in the health system must work together and demonstrate leadership to eliminate these negative behaviours.

Employers must ensure they provide a safe workplace, and negative behaviours and cultures must be addressed, in the first instance, in the workplace. In the health system, employers include the state and territory governments, who provide public health services, and providers in the private sector, mostly in private hospital settings. There are various pieces of state and territory legislation that specify employers' responsibilities, including work health and safety legislation. Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation also protects against discriminatory practices or treatment in the workplace.

The educators of the health workforce, the higher education and vocational education sectors, and medical specialty colleges, also have an important role in growing students to work as part of a cohesive health workforce demonstrating positive behaviours. Teachers and clinical supervisors must model positive behaviours and ensure that there are clear processes in place so that students can be confident that any issues they experience will be fairly and transparently addressed, whether that be at the educational institution or in a health service.

Professional bodies also have a role in developing and setting professional expectations and generally providing guidance to their professions.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the national health profession boards (National Boards), as the national regulators of 14 professional groups, have the important role under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law) of ensuring that only those practitioners who are safe to practise are registered. Individual health practitioners must be held to account if their behaviour is such that patient safety is put at risk. If AHPRA is provided with a notification about a practitioner's behaviour that is impacting on patient safety, they are mandated to investigate this claim and decide whether any regulatory action is required in terms of the practitioner's registration to practise.

The National Law outlines the processes for handling a notification against a health practitioner and has a number of safeguards in place to support this process, including appeal rights for affected practitioners. The National Law also sets out the requirements for mandatory notifications for health professionals.

Response to the recommendations

The Australian Government has considered the six recommendations made in the report and provides the following responses. The Commonwealth Department of Health and the Department of Education and Training are the key portfolios with responsibilities relating to the recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that all parties with responsibility for addressing bullying and harassment in the medical profession, including governments, hospitals, specialty colleges and universities:

acknowledge that bullying and harassment remains prevalent within the profession, to the detriment of individual practitioners and patients alike;

recognise that working together and addressing these issues in a collaborative way is the only solution; and

commit to ongoing and sustained action and resources to eliminate these behaviours.

Australian Government response to recommendation 1:

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The submissions and the inquiry hearings provided evidence of significant levels and types of bullying and harassment within health professions, especially in the medical profession. There must be zero tolerance of bullying and harassment in all health professions and systems must be in place to ensure that there are transparent mechanisms to provide avenues for victims to address issues without any fear of reprisal. To be effective, this requires collaborative work between governments, hospitals and health services, specialty colleges, professional associations and universities to prevent and address bullying and harassment in the workplace. Issues concerning bullying and harassment in the medical profession are under consideration and will continue to be addressed by all Health Ministers through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Health Council.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that all universities adopt a curriculum that incorporates compulsory education on bullying and harassment.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that all universities accept responsibility for their students while they are on placement and further adopt a procedure for dealing with complaints of bullying and harassment made by their students while on placement. This procedure should be clearly defined and a written copy provided to students prior to their placement commencing.

Australian Government response to recommendations 2 and 3:

The Australian Government supports recommendations 2 and 3 and notes that these are actions to be addressed by universities and organisations that provide clinical placements. The Australian Government has established a regulatory framework that requires providers to be responsible for the student experience both on and off campus. The requirement has been further strengthened by the revised Higher Education Standards Framework (the Standards) 2015 which came into effect from 1 January 2017. All registered higher education providers must comply with the Standards to remain registered with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. The Standards require that "work-integrated learning, placements, other community-based learning and collaborative research training arrangements are quality assured, including assurance of the quality of supervision of student experiences" (Standard 5.4.1).

The Standards also require that "when a course of study, parts of a course of study, or research training are delivered through arrangements with another party(ies), whether in Australia or overseas, the registered higher education provider remains accountable for the course of study and verifies continuing compliance of the course with the standards in the Higher Education Standards Framework that relate to the specific arrangement" (Standard 5.4.2).

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that all hospitals review their codes of conduct to ensure that they contain a provision that specifically states that bullying and harassment in the workplace is strictly not tolerated towards hospital staff, students and volunteers.

Australian Government response to recommendation 4:

The Australian Government supports recommendation 4, noting that as the employers, this responsibility sits with state and territory health departments and private hospitals.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that all specialist training colleges publicly release an annual report detailing how many complaints of bullying and harassment their members and trainees have been subject to and how many sanctions the college has imposed as a result of those complaints.

Australian Government response to recommendation 5:

The Australian Government notes recommendation 5. This recommendation is a matter for specialist training colleges to consider. Through the COAG Health Council, Health Ministers will continue to receive updates from AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia on their work to improve transparency of vocational training pathways.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that a new inquiry be established with terms of reference to address the following matters:

the implementation of the current complaints system under the National Law, including the role of AHPRA and the National Boards;

whether the existing regulatory framework, established by the National Law, contains adequate provision for addressing medical complaints;

the roles of AHPRA, the National Boards and professional organisations—such as the various Colleges—in addressing concerns within the medical profession with the complaints process;

the adequacy of the relationships between those bodies responsible for handling complaints;

whether amendments to the National Law in relation to the complaints handling process are required; and

other improvements that could assist in a fairer, quicker and more effective medical complaints process.

Australian Government response to recommendation 6:

The Australian Government does not support recommendation 6.

The Scheme has undergone a number of reviews including an Independent Review of the Scheme (the NRAS Review) completed by Mr Kim Snowball in December 2014. In addition, reviews in Queensland (Parliamentary Committee inquiry into the functioning of the Office of the Health Ombudsman), and Victoria (Duckett review) have been undertaken.

The Government believes that a further inquiry is not warranted at this time. Work is currently underway as a result of these reviews, in collaboration with jurisdictions and AHPRA, to make improvements to the Scheme, especially in relation to notifications and complaints processes. This work is expected to address the issues raised in Recommendation 6.

Australian Government response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report: Establishment of a national registration system for Australian paramedics to improve and ensure patient and community safety

October 2017

Recommendations and Australian Government responses

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the paramedic profession be nationally registered and accredited throughout Australia, and that such a scheme give consideration to 'grandparenting' arrangements for current paramedics, while ensuring that they meet the agreed professional standards.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the establishment of a paramedics board, operating in conjunction with the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) and administered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

Australian Government response to recommendations 1 and 2:

On 7 October 2016, all Health Ministers agreed to proceed with amendments to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law) that will bring into effect the regulation of paramedics into the NRAS. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 (the Bill) was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 13 June 2017 and includes provisions to incorporate paramedics into the National Law. The Bill includes provisions for grandparenting arrangements for current paramedics and will establish the Paramedicine Board of Australia.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that all Australian states and territories participate in a national registration and accreditation system for paramedics.

Australian Government response to recommendation 3:

National consistency was a key principle underpinning the establishment of the NRAS. The Government is of the view that maintaining this consistency is critical to the ongoing success of the NRAS and continued achievement of positive outcomes, such as those described by Health Ministers in their Communique of 7 August 20151. The Government welcomes the decision by all Health Ministers at their meeting of 7 October 2016 to participate in the registration of paramedics under the NRAS.

1 http://www.coaghealthcouncil.gov.au/Announcements/ArtMID/527/ArticleID/71/Reissued-Communique-Final-Report-of-the-Independent-Review-on-the-National-Accreditation-Scheme-for-health-professionals

In the limited amount of time that I suspect is left in this section, in respect of the government response to the Community Affairs References Committee report Medical complaints process in Australia, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I chaired that inquiry. It was, I thought, an important inquiry. I will just remind the chamber that it related to, and brought to light a lot of detail surrounding, workplace bullying and harassment for the medical profession, and, in particular, the medical complaints process in Australia. That's what this was particularly focused on.

The committee heard about the bullying of some of our medical students that has been going on. We heard some quite poignant accounts of some of the bullying and harassment that some of the medical students have felt—in particular, female medical students—and we heard some pretty significant and compelling evidence of people's very awful experiences in our training facilities, unfortunately. We also heard how some of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander medical students had felt bullied and harassed through their experiences. We also heard from medical practitioners who have been going through the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency processes of medical complaints, and we heard, again, some pretty compelling evidence—certainly, people felt bullied and harassed through that process.

We made a number of recommendations, to which the government has responded. And, for once, I can stand in this place and say: the government has supported most of our recommendations. Our first recommendation was:

… that all parties with responsibility for addressing bullying and harassment in the medical profession, including governments, hospitals, speciality colleges and universities:

The government supports this recommendation, which is great. We also recommended that all universities adopt a curriculum that incorporates compulsory education on bullying and harassment.

Recommendation 3 was:

… that all universities accept responsibility for their students while they are on placement and further adopt a procedure for dealing with complaints of bullying and harassment made by their students while on placement. This procedure should be clearly defined and a written copy provided to students prior to their placement commencing.

The government supports both of those recommendations. They note that the actions are required by the university and organisations that provide the clinical placements. It is the same as with recommendation 1: they are saying it is the responsibility of those institutions, which is right, but it's good to have government behind those recommendations and reinforcing them with the institutions. But, as to this issue around having the universities accept responsibility for their students while on placement, it has been while these students have been on placement that some of this harassment and bullying has occurred, and they haven't really known who to complain to. The hospitals say they are not theirs, and the universities say, 'Well, you're on placement,' so it's very unclear how they can take action.

Our fourth recommendation was:

… that all hospitals review their codes of conduct to ensure that they contain a provision that specifically states that bullying and harassment in the workplace is strictly not tolerated towards hospital staff, students and volunteers.

We've heard a lot about this over the years in the media, where hospitals say they are taking action and other organisations, such as the specialty colleges, say they are going to take action. Unfortunately, the evidence we received shows that this is still happening. So this sort of recommendation is really important, and it's really important that it's taken on board by these organisations and that hospitals, in particular, review their codes of conduct. The government again supports this. I urge the government and the departments to take this up with the hospitals.

Recommendation 5 is:

… that all specialist training colleges publicly release an annual report detailing how many complaints of bullying and harassment their members and trainees have been subject to and how many sanctions the college has imposed as a result of those complaints.

This is actually really, really important as well. It's really important that these reports are published so that these institutions are transparent and accountable. I am hoping that, in the future, if all of these recommendations are implemented, we will see a decrease in this harassment.

Our sixth recommendation is the only recommendation that the government didn't support, and that is:

The committee recommends that a new inquiry be established with terms of reference to address the following matters:

During this inquiry, we got a number of submissions from health professionals and practitioners that did not specifically relate to the terms of reference, so we felt very strongly that we needed another inquiry. The government didn't support this recommendation. The Senate obviously agreed with us because, in fact, they did support our referral of this to an inquiry. So it's a pretty pointless response from the government, because we actually held the inquiry and we got some very compelling evidence around some issues that do need to be addressed that are in another committee report. So I am making the point here that whilst the government did not support us having another inquiry, as I have just outlined, the Senate did refer it to the committee. The committee has already reported and we found, as I said, some pretty significant issues and made some recommendations, which I hope the government does look favourably on.

I hope I will again be in this place speaking favourably about how the government has supported some of the committee's recommendations for improvement in the process because no system is perfect. This one certainly hasn't been. It has caused distress. There have been issues raised. There are a number of practitioners who feel strongly that they have been bullied and harassed through the process. So I urge the government to look on the committee's subsequent report to the inquiry the government didn't want us to do, which we did anyway. I encourage the government to look at those recommendations carefully and support those the same way they supported these. I urge the government to work with these institutions and encourage these institutions to take up the recommendations that we made in this report, which they support. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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.

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—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (SAFTA AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2017

Customs Act1901

Customs Tariff Act1995

- our bilateral trade relationship has grown by over 80 per cent; and

- bilateral investment has grown by more than 350 per cent.

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (SINGAPORE-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2017

Customs Tariff Act1995

- providing duty-free access on entry into force of the amended Agreement for most eligible goods determined in accordance with new Division 1BA of Part VIII of the Customs Act. New Division 1BA is inserted into the Customs Act by the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017;

- amending certain concessional items in Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to maintain customs duty rates in line with the applicable concessional item;

- inserting new Schedule 4A to provide for excise-equivalent rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and certain fuel products in accordance with the amended Agreement; and

- repealing provisions in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act that provide for excise equivalent rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and fuel products in accordance with the Amendment Agreement, after the expiration of a three-year transition period.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

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—

DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INSTRUMENT MAKING) BILL 2017

The proposed bill will amend instrument making powers in the Defence Act 1903 ('Defence Act') to ensure that, when re-making certain instruments made under the Defence Act in the future, the instruments can reflect modern policy requirements and approaches to drafting.

Several instruments made under the Defence Act are scheduled to sunset in April 2018, including the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985,the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989, and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These instruments deal with important issues and it will be necessary to re-make them in some form before they sunset.

As is the purpose of sunsetting, the intention is to improve the instruments by consolidating duplications, improving consistency, and providing clarity wherever possible.

Defence Inquiries

At present, the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 ('Defence (Inquiry) Regulations') establish a range of inquiries that can be undertaken in Defence, including General Courts of Inquiry, Boards of Inquiry, Combined Boards of Inquiry, Chief of the Defence Force Commissions of Inquiry, and Inquiry Officer inquiries.

The different types of inquiries outlined in the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations all perform a similar function, which is to assist commanders in the Defence Force to obtain accurate and relevant information in a timely manner to inform their decisions and actions. Similar procedures and powers also apply to each type of inquiry.

When re-making this instrument, the intention is to consolidate the different types of inquiries, instead articulating one form of inquiry that would be flexible and scalable to suit the relevant circumstances.

To achieve this, the bill will amend the regulation-making power in the Defence Act as it relates to inquiries. Instead of listing different types of inquiries, the new provision will simply enable the making of regulations relating to inquiries concerning the Defence Force.

Defence Aviation Areas

The Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 ('Defence (Areas Control) Regulations') prescribe affected land, in which buildings and other objects hazardous to aviation can be regulated.

The regulations include limits on building heights within prescribed areas, prohibitions on bringing hazardous objects within a prescribed area, powers to require the removal or marking of hazardous objects within prescribed areas, and powers to enter a prescribed area to remove or mark hazardous objects.

The power to make these regulations is at paragraph 124(1) (na) of the Defence Act, which enables the making of regulations for 'the regulation, control or prohibition of the construction or use of buildings, erections or installations, the use of apparatus, machines or vehicles, and the removal in whole or in part of buildings, erections, installations, apparatus, trees or other natural obstacles, within prescribed areas... '.

The scheme established in the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations is important to maintain safety for defence aviation, prescribing areas in the surroundings of 12 defence airfields.

The bill will repeal the regulation-making power in paragraph 124(1) (na}, and insert a new Part IXD relating to the establishment of defence aviation areas in which buildings and objects can be regulated for the purposes of removing and reducing hazards to defence aviation.

Rather than being prescribed in the regulations, the Minister may declare an area to be a defence aviation area by legislative instrument. This will significantly reduce the length of the regulations, enable changes to maps of the areas to be incorporated in the instrument more quickly, and will be consistent with the approach taken to the declaration of defence areas under Part 11 of the Defence Regulation 2016. This will not reduce the ability for the Parliament to provide oversight to these regulations.

The bill will also improve the clarity of the regulation-making power more generally in the new Part. In line with current drafting practice, the new Part will trigger the standard provisions in Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 ('Regulatory Powers Act') for monitoring whether legislation is being complied with, or whether information given to the Commonwealth in compliance, or purported compliance, is correct.

Defence Public Areas

The Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987 (by-laws) apply in public areas declared under Part IXB of the Defence Act.

There are currently two existing public areas: the Beecroft public area in New South Wales, and the Garden Island public area in Western Australia. Each public area is a significant tract of Defence land, where there is a strong interest in enabling public entry for recreational purposes where this can be achieved consistently with defence requirements.

The by-laws apply in the public areas, and regulate the public's use of the areas. For example, they provide for offences relating to parking, camping and fishing in public areas.

When re-making the by-laws, the intention is to enable some of the offences to be enforced through an infringement notice scheme. At present, paragraph 116ZD(2) (r) enables the by-laws to include this type of scheme for some offences. However, the by-laws do not currently include an infringement notice scheme.

In line with current drafting practice, the preference is to establish infringement notice schemes by reference to standard provisions in the Regulatory Powers Act. Accordingly, this bill will amend the Defence Act to enable the by-laws to specify strict liability offences as subject to an infringement notice under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

The sunsetting and re-making process of these Defence instruments have provided Defence with the opportunity to update its policies and practices in a number of important subject matter areas.

The bill provides Defence not only with the opportunity to modernise the language of its legislation, but also assist the regulation making process in the future.

I commend the bill.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2017 MEASURES NO. 6) BILL 2017

This bill implements two government initiatives to encourage innovation in Australia.

This is another example of the Turnbull Government pulling back the red tape and outdated tax settings that hold back Australian start-ups and innovators, and ensuring our tax system is fit for purpose.

Schedule 1 to this bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999

to change the GST treatment of digital currency to be like money.

The bill delivers on the 2017-18 Budget commitment to remove the double taxation of digital currency from 1 July 2017.

The bill ensures that GST will no longer be charged on purchases of digital currency. As announced in the 2017 Budget, the bill has a retrospective start date of 1 July 2017.

Currently, consumers who use digital currency can effectively bear a GST burden twice: once on the purchase of the digital currency and once again on its use in exchange for other goods and services subject to the GST.

The current GST treatment of digital currency is an obstacle to the growth of the Financial Technology or 'FinTech' industry in Australia.

This government bill removes this GST obstacle.

Schedule 1 of the bill will introduce a definition of digital currency into the GST law. The definition is based on principles to ensure that digital currency that operates like money is treated like money for GST purposes. The bill will apply to all digital currencies that meet this definition.

The government has worked with the FinTech sector to ensure that the definition of digital currency to be included in the GST law can support rapidly evolving technology.

The FinTech sector has enthusiastically supported the measure. The bill will make it easier for new innovative digital currency businesses to operate in Australia.

FinTech is about stimulating technological innovation so that financial markets and systems can become more efficient and consumer-focused.

The measure to remove the double taxation of digital currency is an important step to creating an environment for Australia's FinTech sector where it can be both internationally competitive and play a central role in aiding the positive transformation of our economy.

The government continues to deliver on its FinTech agenda by commencing work on an enhanced package of further reforms to be implemented this year.

The government will make it easier for new innovative start-ups to access funding and the investors they need. We will support FinTech businesses to test innovative financial services to facilitate more innovation, promote greater competition and increase choice for Australian consumers.

The government is making real progress.

Schedule 1 of the bill to remove the double taxation of digital currency proves yet again the government is backing FinTech with tangible initiatives.

Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997to include the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation on the list of deductible gift recipients.

Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to the Centre.

The Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation is a registered charity based in Western Australia that works with universities, research institutes, government, private enterprise and industry to promote entrepreneurism and commercialisation of innovative ideas.

The Centre's mission to encourage the take-up of innovative ideas by start-ups in Australia, rather than moving overseas, is a core theme of the government's innovation agenda.

Forging stronger connections between researchers and the private sector is important in harnessing the new sources of growth which will deliver the next age of economic prosperity in Australia.

Granting deductible gift recipient status to the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation will assist the organisation with fundraising for this very important cause.

Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

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—

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS BILL 2017

Today I'm delighted to introduce the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, which is the most important of six bills in a package of legislation to reform the system of industrial chemicals regulation and establish a new scheme for Australia, known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (or AICIS). These reforms also deliver on the Coalition's commitment to reduce red tape and improve the safety risk framework for industrial chemicals in Australia.

Industrial chemicals play an essential role in everyday life – they are in paints and petrol, and are used in the production of a wide range of consumer products such as cosmetics, dyes, cleaners and plastics. They are also an integral part of Australian industry and are extensively used in mining, manufacturing, and the building and construction industry. But they can also present risks to human health, worker safety and the environment that require management through fit-for-purpose regulation.

The details for the regulations will be set out under the bills, and contain the technical and operational details to ensure the new scheme remains responsive to scientific development and changes in industry. This regulation will be subject to further public consultation.

Industrial chemicals also form part of a multi-billion dollar international market, with Australian imports and exports of industrial chemicals combined exceeding approximately $62 billion in 2015-16. It is important that Australian regulation aligns, as far as possible, with that of our trading partners, and that it is flexible enough to accommodate changes as they occur internationally, and as the science develops.

The bill that I am introducing today introduces a new scheme designed to make regulatory effort more proportionate to risk, and to promote safer innovation by encouraging the introduction of lower risk chemicals. The changes will continue to maintain Australia's high standards for protecting the Australian community (both workers and the general public) and the environment from any harmful effects of industrial chemicals.

The regulation of industrial chemicals at the Commonwealth level has existed since 1989 under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act. However with the passage of time, through successive governments, it has been recognised that reform was required to streamline what has become a very complicated regulatory scheme.

The bill will establish the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the current National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. Under the new scheme, the Executive Director, who will be an independent statutory office-holder appointed by the Governor-General, will have a range of important functions in relation to the introduction of industrial chemicals in Australia. 'Introduction' refers to importation or manufacture. The Executive Director's functions will include the assessment and publication of information about certain industrial chemicals introductions. AICIS publications will then be used by other bodies, including Australian Government and state and territory-based regulators, to aid in the protection of human health, worker safety and the environment. Poisons scheduling, occupational health and safety, and environmental protection regulation, performed under state and territory law and coordinated nationally, will be informed by AICIS publications.

The package also delivers on an important Coalition Government election commitment and an issue that is important to many Australians – banning cosmetic testing on animals. The Government has received strong public support to introduce a ban on cosmetic testing on animals. The ban provided for in this bill will bring Australia into line with the EU and other countries introducing a ban on cosmetic testing on animals, prospectively following the commencement of the legislation on 1 July 2018. Indeed, the new scheme in Australia is moving away from the use of animal test data for other purposes, so that animal test data, like in the EU, would be used as a last resort where science has not yet developed valid alternatives that can assure continued protections for human health, worker safety and the environment.

This ban will apply on the use of animal testing for more than 99% of the cosmetics ingredients introduced into Australia. The remaining less than 1% are circumstances where these chemicals are also used in other industries and this information is critical to ensure the protection of consumers, the public and workers, and the environment. The Coalition believes that the legislation will establish Australia as a world leader in this space.

The Coalition Government first announced the industrial chemical reforms as part of the 2015-16 Budget and since September 2015, there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders to develop the implementation detail for the reforms. We have undertaken four rounds of public consultation, released four consultation papers, held 8 public workshops – with over 350 stakeholders in attendance – reviewed 148 written submissions, and sought advice from international regulators. Our consultation will not stop here though, and an important process of consultation will continue with stakeholders to inform the development of delegated legislation. This will be critical to implementing the new scheme.

I think it is fair to say that our stakeholders do not all share the same views about the level of regulation that should be applied to industrial chemicals – with some favouring a more restrictive approach and others favouring a more de-regulatory approach. But, after carefully considering the views of all, I believe that the bill before us strikes a very effective balance. The bill achieves this balance in five main ways.

First, by removing unnecessary regulatory burden and improving IT systems, the costs to industry will be reduced by around $23 million annually. We have found more efficient ways to achieve similar outcomes without in any way jeopardising health and environmental protections.

Second, introduction of a more risk-based approach to regulation encourages innovation and ensures that lower risk chemicals are not subject to unnecessary restrictions. By enabling industry to self-assess lower risk chemicals, this reduces the number of chemicals assessed by the regulator by more than 70% ­­- thereby reducing costs to industry, and also enabling the regulator to focus its efforts on higher risk chemicals.

Third, the bill better aligns industrial chemicals regulation with that of Australia's trading partners. Government has worked closely with regulators in the US and Canada to ensure that wherever possible, definitions are aligned, key concepts are consistent, and most importantly that low-cost, streamlined regulatory pathways will be available for chemicals that have already been assessed by comparable international regulators. This supports the Australian industry to become more competitive internationally.

Fourth, a national inventory of industrial chemicals will be enhanced. Chemicals will be added to the inventory following assessment by AICIS under the new scheme and will be linked to the assessment statement, providing important information about the steps required to safely use these higher risk chemicals. Critically, this will improve transparency of the scheme and chemicals on the market by publishing information that is more meaningful for industry and the public, including particularly important risk and safety information about the chemicals that have been assessed.

Finally, the bill includes new powers for the regulator to ensure the protection of consumers, workers and the environment. The regulator will be able to refuse the import or manufacture of industrial chemicals where the risks cannot be adequately managed (either by the regulator, or by other Australian risk managers such as environmental authorities). The regulator will also have strengthened enforcement powers in the event of non-compliance.

An important benefit of realigning regulatory effort towards chemicals with a higher risk profile is that the costs to businesses using lower risk chemicals will be reduced. The faster regulatory pathway to introduction of lower risk chemicals provides an incentive to introduce safer new industrial chemicals, including replacing more hazardous existing chemicals. A greater focus on post-market assessment and monitoring will assist in maintaining the protection of health and safety of consumers, workers and the environment.

As mentioned earlier, in an area of science that is very dynamic and involves a high level of technical detail, it is critical that the regulatory system can adapt quickly in line with industry innovation, scientific advances and discoveries about the hazards of chemicals. For this reason, much of the detail about the types of chemicals subject to different levels of regulation will be set out in delegated legislation and guidance material. The Department of Health has already undertaken a great deal of consultation on the detail to be included in the delegated legislation and a fifth Consultation Paper seeks the further input of stakeholders. I encourage all stakeholders to contribute to this consultation process.

This bill delivers on the Coalition Government's promise to build a strong new economy by incentivising innovation, supporting Australian exporters and protecting human health and our environment.

This bill also ensures that the regulatory system provides an effective platform for the coming decades – one that is efficient, risk-based, proportionate, encourages innovation and ensures ongoing protections for consumers, workers and the environment.

The Community Affairs Legislation Committee tabled its report on the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and related bills on 8 August 2017, recommending that the bill be passed. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens identified some issues that remain of concern to them.

The Government has carefully considered each of the issues and recommendations proposed and would like to provide greater clarity around these issues.

Firstly, the Government is committed to the regulator continuing to evaluate unassessed chemicals on the national inventory. The new, flexible and responsive evaluation framework in the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 will be used to continue the process commenced through the administrative Inventory Multi-Tiered Assessment and Prioritisation (IMAP) framework, to prioritise industrial chemicals on the national inventory for systematic evaluation.

The new evaluation framework builds on the success of IMAP, which has seen over 7,500 higher priority chemicals assessed since 2012.

Secondly, the Government will ensure that the regulator tracks and reports on the status of actions taken by risk managers to increase transparency in relation to any risk management recommendations made by the regulator to address identified risks. This would be implemented in a way that allows timely publication of this information, which will be of benefit to industry and community groups.

The Government will not introduce reporting requirements for the exempted introduction category. The objective of establishing a risk-based scheme is to ensure that regulatory effort is proportionate to risk, allowing the regulator to focus resources and effort on assessing those higher risk chemicals where greater regulatory oversight is necessary. This will ensure that Australia continues to maintain its high standard of protection for human health, worker safety and the environment.

In order to use this exempted introduction category, the chemical introductions will need to meet strict objective criteria set out in the delegated legislation. This will ensure that they are very low risk. Because the regulator will publish clear and detailed information about the criteria used to categorise a chemical introduction as 'very low risk', interested members of the public will have access to meaningful information about the types of chemicals being introduced under this category.

Removing unnecessary regulatory burden for very low risk chemicals is expected to promote safer innovation by encouraging the introduction and use of cleaner and greener chemistry, which would benefit the Australian community and the environment, as well as reduce costs for industry, which would benefit Australian consumers. New and strengthened monitoring and compliance powers will enable appropriate and proportionate action to be taken to ensure continued compliance and protections for the Australian people, both workers and the public, and the environment from harmful effects from industrial chemicals.

The Government ban on the use of animal test data for chemicals introduced solely for use in cosmetics is consistent with the way a ban has been implemented in the European Union. It sees those chemicals introduced only for cosmetics subject to the ban on the use of new animal test data, while allowing, like in Europe, new animal test data—as a last resort only—for the purposes of assessing worker safety and environmental protection. It is paramount that we maintain our high standards of protections for human health, worker safety and the environment.

In addition, the Government has already announced a number of non-legislative measures which address concerns that consumers require greater clarity and certainty around animal testing and the products they are using.

Finally, the contemporary approach to legislation is to have a principles-based primary Act, with the technical and operational details in delegated legislation, or the rules, which are disallowable legislative instruments. This good regulatory practice ensures that the policy objective of creating a scheme that is risk-based and proportionate is maintained over time, with flexibility to be responsive to future regulatory and scientific developments, as well as changes in industry and emerging public concerns about industrial chemicals.

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting bills - the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 to the government's package of legislation to reform the industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The Bill is a companion bill to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. It will facilitate the transition for industry and others currently operating under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017.

This Bill will repeal the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 and the three Industrial Chemicals Charges Acts at a time when the new arrangements come into effect on 1 July 2018. In addition it will make consequential amendments to a range of other Commonwealth legislation to replace references to the 'Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989' with the 'Industrial Chemicals Act 2017'.

Most importantly, this bill will provide for the smooth transition of industrial chemicals from the old legislation to the new regulatory framework, to be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS).

It will do this by ensuring that the risks associated with the introduction of an industrial chemical that are managed under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 will continue to be managed following its repeal, and providing certainty to people currently introducing industrial chemicals.

The Bill provides a seamless transition to the new arrangements for those authorisations or processes that already in place by recognising existing approvals under the old legislation, and deeming others to be applications under the most appropriate category in the new arrangements.

For example, if an assessment certificate or permit on which a person is introducing a chemical was made under the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, it will be considered to be made under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2017 and the controls on its introduction will continue to be applied. Importantly, a chemical that was previously on the inventory will be considered to be on the inventory under the new arrangements, providing for its continued introduction.

In some key areas, such the introduction of chemicals that are of low volume or low concentration, the transition will take place over a 12 month period so businesses have more time to align with the new requirements for introduction.

This bill will also provide for the transitioning, over a period of time, of confidential business information under the old framework to the new arrangement. Decisions to limit access to some confidential information under the old legislation will be taken to have been decisions under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2017. As these decisions are due for reconsideration, businesses will be encouraged to move to the more contemporary mechanisms.

Finally the bill also provides a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe other matters of a transitional nature in the rules.

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (NOTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2017

Today I am pleased to introduce the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017 as part of a package of six Bills that reform the regulation of industrial chemicals in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act1989 (the ICNA Act) establishes a national system of notification and assessment of industrial chemicals and for registration of certain persons manufacturing or importing chemicals into Australia.

The bill that I am introducing makes important changes to the ICNA Act to enable early commencement of certain aspects of the Coalition Government's broader reforms to industrial chemicals regulation that would otherwise commence from 1 July 2018.

The amendments to the ICNA Act in this bill include:

Collectively these changes reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and provide a faster regulatory pathway for introduction to the Australian market for lower risk chemicals, whilst ensuring that we do not compromise the high standards for health and safety and protecting our environment.

These early reforms also set the stage for the wider package of reforms that will take effect from 1 July 2018, and are reflected in the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and the related supporting bills.

This bill I introduce today contributes to the Coalition Government's commitment, to ensuring that the regulatory system provides an effective platform for the coming decades – one that is efficient, risk-based, proportionate, encourages innovation and ensures ongoing protections for Australian consumers, workers and the environment.

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (GENERAL) BILL 2017

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting Bills - the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia. The new scheme will be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS).

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 is one of three charges Bills being introduced as part of the government's package of legislation; and will replace the current Industrial Chemicals (Registration Charge-General) Act 1997. The other two bills are the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017.

This Bill will facilitate a cost recovered scheme, by introducing a charge on a registered person each year they wish to introduce a chemical in accordance with the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. The legislation requires that the Minister for Health be satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely costs of AICIS regulatory activities. This will provide introducers of chemicals with confidence that the government will not over-recover the costs of managing these regulatory activities.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charges. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in the regulations. Specifying such matters in regulations, as opposed to the Act itself, provides the Department with sufficient flexibility to ensure that these matters are appropriate in all circumstances.

The Department of Health will be consulting extensively on the mechanism for calculating this charge to ensure cost recovery arrangements for activities provided in relation to registering chemicals are appropriately supported. I encourage all stakeholders to respond to this consultation process.

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (CUSTOMS) BILL 2017

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the three charges bills the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of customs. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 and have the same operative function and effect.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charge and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in regulations, which will be the subject of further consultation.

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CHARGES (EXCISE) BILL 2017

Today I am pleased to introduce one of the supporting bills- the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 to the government's package of legislation to reform industrial chemicals regulation in Australia.

The Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise. The key provisions of the bill mirror those in the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017 and have the same operative function and effect.

The bill does not itself set the amount of the charge and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in regulations, which will be the subject of further consultation.

Debate adjourned.

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—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (REDUCING PRESSURE ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MEASURES NO.1) BILL 2017

This bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953, Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 , A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 , Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, Higher Education Support Act 2003, Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, Social Security Act 1991, Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003, and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to create the right incentives to improve housing outcomes for Australians.

Australians are entering the housing market later in life than previous generations and home ownership is falling out of reach for many younger Australians. With house prices high, difficulty saving a deposit is a key barrier to getting into the market.

That's why these changes are essential and why we need to act now.

The Government will help Australians boost their savings for their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation.

Older Australians will also be given greater flexibility to contribute the proceeds of the sale of their home into superannuation. This will help free up housing stock, in particular larger homes, for younger growing families by reducing barriers to older Australians downsizing form homes that no longer meet their needs.

These changes were announced in the Budget and this bill gives effect to those announcements.

Schedule 1 implements the First Home Super Saver Scheme measure.

From 1 July 2017, individuals can make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 per year and $30,000 in total, to their superannuation account to purchase a first home. These contributions, along with deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit. Withdrawals will be taxed at marginal tax rates less a 30 per cent offset and allowed from 1 July 2018.

For most people, the First Home Super Saver Scheme could boost the savings they can put towards a deposit by at least 30 per cent compared with saving through a standard deposit account. This is due to the concessional tax treatment and the higher rate of earnings often realised within superannuation.

Many employees will be able to take advantage of salary sacrifice arrangements to make pre-tax contributions. Individuals who are self-employed or whose employers do not offer salary sacrifice can claim a tax deduction on personal contributions , meaning savings effectively come out of pre-tax income.

The amount of earnings that can be released will be calculated using a deemed rate of return based on the 90 day Bank Bill rate plus three percentage points (as per the Shortfall Interest Charge).

The First Home Super Saver Scheme will be administered by the ATO, which will determine the amount of contributions that can be released and instruct superannuation funds to make these payments accordingly.

Schedule 2 implements the contributing the proceeds of downsizing into superannuation measure.

From 1 July 2018, people aged 65 and older will be able to make an exempt non­ concessional contribution of up to $300,000 to their superannuation after selling their main residential home.

The measure will apply to homes held for a minimum of ten years, and both members of a couple may take advantage of it. That is, up to $600,000 of contributions may be made by a couple.

These contributions will not be subject to existing age and work tests that apply to voluntary contributions for those aged 65 and older. Therefore they can be in addition to any other contributions they are eligible to make. That is, the $1.6 million test for making non­ concessional contributions will not apply.

I'm confident these reforms will go towards creating the right incentives to improve housing outcomes for Australians.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

FIRST HOME SUPER SAVER TAX BILL 2017

This bill is a part of implementing the First Home Super Saver measure in Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No.1) Bill 2017.

The bill imposes the First Home Super Saver Scheme Tax. This tax is intended to remove the incentive to withdraw money using the scheme without buying a first home or re-contributing to superannuation.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No.1) Bill 2017.

Debate adjourned.

Before the debate was interrupted, I was pointing out that it is some three months since the Referendum Council placed its report and its recommendations in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is nearly five months since the historic Uluru summit put a proposal to the Australian nation that went to the issues of constitutional change and the place of the first peoples in our nation state. It also recommended legislation to be developed to set up a Makarata Commission and to deal with truth telling and agreement making. The silence on the other side of the House has been deafening. While the government ponders the issue in silent confusion, the first nations of Australia and their supporters in mainstream society continue to be frustrated at having these longstanding issues ignored and sent to the bottom of the pile. The first nations are no doubt wondering whether truth telling about our intertwined history, with its hurtful aspects, is now being shut down by the government. While the government at the federal level declines to indicate any view or position on these issues, our communities are continuously feeling very frustrated, marginalised and driven almost to the sad outlook that we do not matter.

These issues require leadership, vision and a preparedness to engage in dialogue that seeks resolution, not to be left to fester and die on the vine in resentment. It's neither appropriate nor right for the national parliament to overrule a local council discussing and deciding on issues such as this. Community debate is central to a healthy democracy. On the Labor side, we have put our weight behind the idea of holding a national conversation on the role of the first nations people in our national identity, in our polity and in our society, asking what the place of the first nations people in our collective national identity is. Should they be recognised properly in our foundation document as the first nations of a young nation of immigrants? Should our nation find the courage to face our truth as a separate state established over the top of the first nations peoples? The idea of holding a national conversation about truth-telling, agreement-making and a makarrata commission in a formal legislation framework should be welcomed and not feared. Until the federal government really works at creating this makarrata commission as a truth-telling and agreement-making instrument, again we will see this as a backyard churn rather than rebuilding relationships. We should discuss such things.

We know that makarrata, the Yolngu concept of a cultural and ceremonial symbol of true reconciliation after a long struggle, is something first nation people have been striving for over generations. The Prime Minister heard this firsthand at Garma this year and yet he remains inert. As a consequence, the nation has stalled on the healing process of reconciliation. Look around our parliament, see the Mabo notebooks, the Yolngu bark painting and the Barunga Statement and know that we as legislators have been called upon again and again to talk through these issues, to come to terms with our national identity and to agree a way forward.

The Mabo decision led to an eruption of controversy and alarm in much of mainstream Australia. Mabo was an affront to the security provided by the lie of terra nullius. The same thing is happening right now as people ask themselves whether we should change our national day, whether we should open up the discussion around truth-telling in this country.

On the last Australia Day, I received an unsigned letter to my office which said that my people should 'stop crying, move on and stop complaining about the crap that happened 200 years ago.' The letter was a reminder that the contest of interpretations of our history is not in the spirit of reconciliation, of relationships based on understanding and respect. The heat of this debate is rising because we still don't have an agreement in Australia which sets out the fundamentals of how the colonists came to be here and the basis of their settlement. Surely, as leaders of our nation, we are mature enough to discuss such things and potentially—I say potentially—agree positive outcomes. Or are we?

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, yesterday you said in this chamber:

Australia's history is what it is. Like every country, there are imperfections in it.

You went on to say:

We cannot erase that history. It's not about atoning for it; it is about getting on and making sure we can move forward together.

I say to Senator Bernardi, respectfully, that we cannot move forward together by simply asking the first nations people to get over it. We must contemplate the how of moving forward.

Senator Roberts yesterday stated:

We need to go further, though. We need to stop funding all councils that interfere with Australian icons, heritage and statues, and any local government that wants to rewrite history …

First nations are calling for their histories to be heard and considered and for their perspective to be respected. Our communities are saying: 'If you don't do it at the federal level, we'll try to do it through other tiers of government. We'll have conversations about treaties in South Australia and Victoria. We'll talk about the date of citizenship ceremonies at our local council meetings in Yarra and Darebin and other places.'

These discussions of repositioning at a local council level are important signals. They are an indication of a healthy democracy. We should be looking to pick up sentiments on all sides of this debate for the sake of rebuilding a better relationship at the national level. We should not be singling out individual councils and denying them their rights to make decisions within their own communities. I see these local council decisions as a sign of our nation maturing in its understanding of our intertwined but, as yet, unreconciled history.

Ultimately, the federal parliament will have to face up to such challenging and contentious issues. Our national and international reputation will depend upon our response to the first nation peoples. We, in Labor, support first nation peoples who are working with their local and regional communities to develop their own agreements on such issues. We, in Labor, support the decision of the ACT government to hold a reconciliation public holiday on 28 May. This is the decision of that community. It is an anniversary of significance for events such as the Mabo decision and the 1967 referendum.

In the future, we will continue to ensure that local governments and regional communities are empowered to make decisions about managing their issues, defining priorities for government programs and handling local issues. We do not support an overreach by the Commonwealth into local community government. We do support the disallowance motion. This is an issue for local governments, not for the federal parliament. We should focus on engaging the community on national challenges to build a truly reconciled nation through dialogue, mutual respect and common agreement. The time of this parliament should be focused on the major issues that affect our nation, like progress towards first nation peoples' recognition and reconciliation of our legacy issues, as well as the growing distrust of the government's intentions regarding the future of the first nation peoples' concerns.

I rise to speak in support of this disallowance motion from Senators McKim and Siewert for the disallowance of legislative instruments made under the Australian Citizenship Act.

The story of local government in Australia is a critical story to remember in this decision. The history of local government is about decision-making at a local level, the third tier of democracy in our country, to allow and enable local people at local levels to make decisions and to believe that those decisions will be respected. When we look at the history in the 1800s leading up to Federation, we can see the strength of local government. It may not have been called that at the time but most of our first federal parliamentarians were local councillors. They were the ones who represented our country. They were the ones who drew up the Constitution—which we now decide is going to determine the fate of those who make decisions at local government levels. We need to remember that as lawmakers. We need to remember what we're doing when we decide, as a federal parliament, to overreach, to overstep, to crush, to diminish or to demolish the voices of those who believe they have a right to be heard. We need to reflect on why it is that we do it. We need to ask ourselves, as members in the federal parliament, how would we feel? How would we feel about that when we rightly represent our constituencies and stand up to fight for the issues that we know are incredibly important, and when we are incredibly passionate in fighting for those values and beliefs?

It's this Australian parliament that tried to get the first referendum up on local government, and it was Gough Whitlam, the former Labor Prime Minister, who was passionate about wanting to see the strength of the regions have a voice and have a future. That referendum was in 1974, and the 'yes' vote was 46.85 per cent. But Labor didn't give up on the local voices. Labor continued to push for the reality that those grassroots voices deserved to be heard and respected. They needed to be enabled to continue to make their own mistakes and to listen to their own constituents at the grassroots level.

It was Bob Hawke, another Labor Prime Minister, who took the country to a second referendum on local government. It was in 1988, the bicentenary year, a year when our country almost tore itself up, strangling itself on the history of first nations people. What did the 1988 bicentenary mean to the first nations people of this country, and what did it mean to all Australians? The arm wrestling and the soul searching continue today. That 1988 referendum saw the local government vote by Australians go down again, with the 'yes' vote at 33.61 per cent.

But Labor still believed in the voice of local government. It was former Prime Minister Paul Keating who first invited the Australian Local Government Association president, along with the states and territories, to the 1992 initiative of the Keating Labor government, a new forum called the Council of Australian Governments—as we all know, COAG. It was a seat at that table where Australian local governments across this country would be heard and their voices respected. In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd established the Council of Australian Local Governments which met for the first time in November 2008. That council represented 565 local councils and shires right across Australia.

The voices of people at local government level are just as important as the voices of federal politicians in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. None of us should take lightly the removal and the disallowance of those voices at that local level with simply a tick of the paper, a flick of the pen: 'I don't like what you're doing. I don't like what you're saying. I'm going to remove your ability to do it, just because I can.' That's what's happened here. People may say, 'It's about Australia Day; don't make it political. Well, hello, senators. Let me tell you: it has to be one of the most political aspects of our country, because our country still has the unresolved issue of the relationship between black and white Australians. But don't let us diminish this parliament by removing the rights of those in local government to have the opportunity to talk about it. It's important that we uphold, as political leaders in this country, the right for those in the third tier of government to be respected, to be enabled and to make the decisions that they have a right, as elected members, to make on behalf of their constituents. And guess what? If they're not happy, they will vote them out, just like they will vote us out. Isn't that what a democracy is all about? Why are we so afraid?

Senator McCarthy, it being 7. 20, I need to move on. Thank you. Pursuant to the order of the Senate of 13 September 2017, the government business order of the day relating to the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, having not been finally considered is now discharged from the Notice Paper.

I rise tonight to pay tribute to a remarkable Australian, Graham 'Butch' Lenton, who, very sadly, passed away recently after a rather lengthy battle with cancer.

Butch Lenton was the mayor of Winton, which is how I met him a couple of years ago. He really was the most extraordinary community-minded man I think I've ever met. He lived in the town of Winton, lived all his life there, was born there, was raised there, went to school there, got married there, worked there, represented his community there and died there in this wonderful little town of about 800 people in Queensland. I first met Butch a couple of years ago. I was heading up to Winton to do a visit to the Royal Flying Doctor Service dental operation that was happening out there. I can still remember. Butch picked me up at the airport and he was larger than life. Butch was terrific. I got off the plane and met this man I hadn't met before, and we just clicked. From that point on, we got on very, very well.

The first day I was with Butch, he was driving me around his community, as all good mayors do. As it turned out, I ended up quite late for the function I was supposed to be there for, because Butch was showing me his town. He was showing me his community. It was fantastic. I loved every minute of it. He showed me everything in his town. I mean everything—absolutely everything! I think we even went to the tip. But it just—

You always go to the tip!

I will take that interjection; thank you, Senator Gallacher. Always go to the tip! It really showed how proud Butch was of his community, his people and everything in it. We went down to the racecourse—I think he was testing out the new minister—and of course it's a dirt track and he was trying to tell me that they would have it turfed by race day. I did manage to point out to him pretty quickly I wasn't falling for that one. He was a terrific fellow. It was the start of a long—over the last couple of years—relationship with Butch, who was such a wonderful member of his local community.

I ended up going back a year later to do a number of things there, one of which was to go with Butch and inspect a proposed dam site. As we were going out to this proposed dam site—there had been a bit of rain, after a long period of drought—we were heading out on a road, which turned into a dirt road, which then turned into a track, which turned into a piece of land where the track disappeared altogether and we were just driving across this random piece of grassed area. There was no track and nothing at all. Butch knew exactly where he was going. It didn't matter that there wasn't a road. We pulled up on the edge of this escarpment. We looked out across this massive, massive area, and he was standing there talking to me about his vision for this dam and what it was going to do for the region and what it was going to do for the people who lived there. Again, he just struck me as a remarkable man that had such a vision for the future of his community and his region. As we were standing there, it just really made me think that he encapsulated everything that we look for in leaders, particularly in our regional communities. As we were driving back—as I said, it had been raining—it was also a chance to witness the most remarkable piece of driving I have ever seen in my life. I don't know how we didn't get bogged. His ability to drive through that very, very wet piece of land was quite extraordinary.

We went back not long after. When I was first there, in 2015, the Waltzing Matilda Centre, which was there in the community, had burnt down—and it was absolutely devastating for the community. At the time, Butch said, 'It was, unfortunately, a bit of a kick in the guts, but we'll tough it out and keep going with it.' That was such an example of him being so relentlessly positive in the face of adversity. Every time some difficulty came up, every time some challenge came in front of that community, Butch was always so positive and so determined just to make things right. He was a true leader. He ending up being absolutely pivotal in making sure that the Waltzing Matilda Centre would be rebuilt, which it now is. It will be concluded, I think, in March or April next year. A $22 million rebuild is being done of this fabulous centre, $8 million of which came from funding from the coalition government. If it hadn't been for Butch and his work in making sure that that funding became a reality, it would never have happened.

When I was there in this wonderful little community at the end of 2016, with the Prime Minister, talking about the $8 million that was going towards this community centre, I thought: 'This is what really matters about being in government. This is about working in partnership with rural communities and working with local leaders to make sure that these rural communities have the best future they possibly can have.' That was Butch to a T. His whole life was about his family: his wife, Ros, and his daughter, Carly—my heart goes out to you and all of the family. It was such an embodiment of everything that he did and strove for to make his community a better place.

The funeral, just recently, was such a testament to this man. There were over 1,000 people there. The tributes that have been pouring through for him since he passed away have been nothing short of amazing—and very fitting. It's not surprising that so many people held him in such high regard, because, as I keep saying, he truly was an extraordinary man.

I was in Winton in June to do a number of things, and I went to the local show. Butch, while being quite unwell, was still so incredibly positive. It was never about him. I think that's one of the lessons we really learn from people like Butch—when you love your community, when you put your community first and when things are not about you but about the people around you and what you can do for them. I think it is a really good lesson to all of us in this place, on all sides of both chambers, to make sure that we continue to put our communities first in the same way that Butch Lenton did. There are not too many people in this world who really get to leave their footprints on the planet, and Butch will be one of those people who actually did that. He was so positive. He was a true leader. He really made sure that every day counted and he was always looking to the next thing. He was always thinking: 'What can we do next? What is the next great thing we can do?'

This tiny little town of Winton, of 800 people, pretty much in the middle of nowhere, is absolutely thriving, and so much of that is due to the fact that Butch Lenton cared so much about that community and invested so much of his life into making sure it was as good as it could possibly be, and that it would be going into the future. He was always looking to the future. The leadership that he showed was just extraordinary. He always had a smile. He was always thinking about the people around him. Being there at the funeral and seeing all of these people from all walks of life turn up and pay their respects to Butch, it was just so fitting. Somebody made the comment that day that he could walk and talk with anybody. He dealt with politicians from all walks of life, from Commonwealth, state and local government, and Butch just treated everybody the same. He was incredibly respectful and he managed to make sure that everybody who needed to know what was important to Winton knew it and that they knew how important it was to him. He made sure that the people who needed to know about everything Winton needed for the future knew about it.

Butch will be a tremendous loss. He will leave enormous shoes to fill. As I said, he walked this planet and he's going to leave such a mark behind him of all the wonderful things that he's done. To Ros and to Carly and to all of the family: he made such a difference. He changed people's lives. He changed the future of that community. He changed the future of that region. There are not very many people who get to say that they've done that. I say thanks to Butch for everything he has done. He will be always remembered. He came into my life a couple of years ago as the mayor, but he left it as a very good friend.

My contribution is on road safety. Last week I was in the great city of Perth, attending the Australasian Road Safety Conference—a very insightful conference, gathering the top minds from around Australasia. It was put on by the Australasian College of Road Safety, Austroads and other major sponsors, and it had over 650 participating delegates. What that tells you is the seriousness that all of the respective state jurisdictions place on road safety.

The keynote speaker was Dr Mark Rosekind, and, as is usual with most of our keynote speakers and visitors from the United States or other jurisdictions, he was a very fine communicator. Dr Rosekind was very straightforward and simple. His attitude, as the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the Obama regime, was: the day he was appointed, he knew his end date. He knew the day that his term would finish, because he would finish alongside President Obama. So, knowing the span of his appointment, he immediately set about working out what he could do, and he said to his design people and his safety people, in all of the areas of the very large entity that he was in control of: 'What can we do? I want to leave this having done something very good for road safety.' You have got to realise that, in the United States, there are 35,000 people killed every year—35,000. So what he said is: 'There are good emerging technologies and I want them in place. I want autonomous braking technology in place. How long will it take for us to legislate that?' The considered response was: 'Under the American design rules, probably about 12 years.' He said: 'Well, I'm not going to go down that path. I'm going to tell the industry that I'm regulating this.' And he made a pronouncement.

Let's look at what happened. Last year, in the United States, the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced a historic commitment by 20 auto-makers, representing 99 per cent of the US auto market, to make autonomous or automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new cars, no later than the 2022 reporting year. But then the manufacturers—and I will just tell you the names of these manufacturers, because they are quite familiar to Australian consumers: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Madsen, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo Cars—having seen that flag put up, that he was going to legislate, immediately consulted and said: 'We will comply. You won't need to legislate. We're going to do this.'

What happened next is even more interesting. So this commitment was made, and then Nissan pledged to have a million cars with AEB in 2018, immediately followed by Toyota and Lexus, who said: 'In 2017, all our vehicles will have autonomous braking technology as standard in the US.' So, from a creative position taken by an administrator who knew his end date, you now have a huge saving in lives and serious injuries in the United States because an administrator got out the front and took a courageous position, determined that he would make a difference. And that is exactly what has happened.

If we've got 650 people contributing to a road safety conference in Australia, that tells us we've got the brain power, the research capability, the energy, the interest and the financial commitment of the states in this very great area. I don't want to sound at all negative about the Hon. Darren Chester—he is a great advocate for road safety—but it's a tiny portion of the work that his department does. They barely have five full-time positions in that department. There is no ability to see the kind of leadership that Dr Rosekind showed in the United States.

We know this technology works. We know that it can reduce impact collisions—rear-end and head-on collisions—by some 40 per cent. Dr Rosekind was very good at communicating that road transport is the only area where we don't democratise safety. All of us travel on aircraft: we don't go to the cockpit and look for an ANCAP five-star safe plane. Every plane is safe to a very high standard. But when we buy a car the features are listed by the manufacturer and put through the Australasian safety regime, and consumers have to find their way to it. Unfortunately, most of the vulnerable consumers don't buy new cars. They buy second-hand cars or third-hand cars, so they're travelling in vehicles which are not up to the standards of new vehicles.

The sooner we accept that 94 per cent of drivers make mistakes—we're fragile; we're not meant to travel at speed; and we always will make mistakes—the sooner we'll get features in the car that take over when people have inattention or people do not see something that the car sees. Every car after 2006 has a data port in it. That data port needs to be open for the communication between all of our emerging technologies. Cars will talk to themselves, and intersections will talk to the cars. There's even a situation at the moment where some cars have been imported into Australia with this very good technology but can't recognise our road signs! In Europe, the road signs are standard. We've got an immense amount of work to do in the line-marking area.

The real challenge is that the federal government—and I mean all federal governments of recent persuasion—has not taken the lead in this space. You have 650 delegates. You can see little or no coordination from the federal government outside of Austroads—who have 200,000 kilometres of bitumen road to maintain. Someone needs to get into the space of safety.

We need to be mandating these technologies. We need to be looking at the interaction of vehicles with infrastructure at intersections. We're told you can get a piece of software that would mean you wouldn't have to stop at a red light. Your car would be advised of what speed to travel at to get all the green lights. We know there is technology which means you'll never be T-boned again. If you're going through a green light and someone wants to do a red-light runner, the car will stop. You don't have to make a decision: the car will stop for you.

This is an area we don't appear to be putting a lot of emphasis on in this federal parliament. As I have said, I'm not terribly critical of the Hon. Darren Chester. He's probably the fourth minister in this space that hasn't had road safety and the emerging technologies as a top agenda item for his department. When you look into the budget papers and you realise there's only 3.8 or 4.8 permanent public servants in the entire department in this space, you can't really be too critical of the lack of evidence of forward thinking and forward planning.

What we do know is we're no longer making motor cars in Australia—the last day will probably be this week. There is an opportunity for us to mandate these technologies from the people who are supplying the motor vehicles. If the suppliers want to go to the United States they'll have to comply, and if they want to go to the European Union they'll have to comply. We should be saying, 'If you want to bring in any of the million cars that are sold in Australia each year, you'll need to comply with these emerging technology requirements.' We will very likely affect the entire supply chain in Asia. If the tooling of the plant in Thailand that makes cars to come to Australia has to include autonomous braking technology, lane-keeping assist and intelligent portals so that the car can talk to other cars and/or intersections and infrastructure, we will probably make the whole of Asia safer. All we do know is that we cannot rely on the manufacturers to do it themselves. They are not going to democratise safety; there is no evidence they have done it in the past. It's up to governments like our government to take the lead, to prioritise road safety, to make the roads safer, to make the cars safer and to make the travelling public safer. It's all there for us to do and there is a wealth of experience and knowledge in Australia to make it happen. There's just a lack of political will.

I do not know when I'll be making my last speech in the Senate. I hope this won't be it, because I have a lot to say about many issues affecting my home state of South Australia, but, like others, being part of the 'citizenship seven', I am in the hands of the High Court—of the wise women and men of the High Court. I will be leaving this place, however, one way or the other and sooner rather than later, once that decision is handed down.

I am not really one for valedictories, but I thought I would use the time available this evening to discuss one issue that, for me, and, indeed, for this parliament, remains unfinished business, and that is the issue of political donations reform. This has long been an issue of concern for me, as I have wanted to see much greater transparency in the financial underpinnings of our democratic system. Without radically improved transparency we have a serious and increasing risk that our nation's democracy will be eroded by money politics. We will have the best democracy that money can buy—and I say that with a great degree of irony. We will be affected and infected by behind-the-scenes influence of powerful vested interests and, indeed, as revelations this year have shown, by foreign governments that may wish to influence our politics to their advantage.

As things stand, our federal political donations regime is quite inadequate and no longer able to provide the transparency required to ensure the integrity of our democratic politics. Just about everyone in this parliament knows it is true that the system is broken, but so far agreement has not been reached on the reforms needed to fix it. The current federal disclosure threshold of $13½ thousand is too high, and the belated publication of political donation returns, sometimes up to 19 months later, is woefully inadequate and manifestly unacceptable. More than a year has passed since the last federal election and we have not yet seen all of the financial returns.

Political game playing and partisan self-interests have been all too obvious in how both major parties have dealt with this vital issue. Everyone says they want reform but only, apparently, reform that disadvantages their opponents or glosses over their own vested interests. I very much hope that the current work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will provide a basis for cross-party agreement on an effective package of reforms before the next federal election, and I believe the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, is doing some good work in this area.

I will also be interested to see that the Attorney-General's legislative proposals to address the threat of covert political interference is dealt with adequately. I previously advocated the enactment of an Australian equivalent of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act to address the activities of organisations and persons that work on behalf of foreign governments or political organisations to influence decisions in our countries. But threats to the democratic process are not primarily from foreign sources. Where the light of transparency is inadequate, unaccountable influence grows. If we don't reform our federal political donation laws, the business of government and this parliament will be increasingly open to compromise and, I fear, corruption.

Further delay in reform would be most unhealthy, but there is some progress elsewhere. Senators would be well advised to take a close look at the new political donation laws introduced by the Andrews government last month. Under this proposed legislation in Victoria there will be a cap on political donations at $4,000 over a four-year parliamentary term, eliminating large donations to political parties, associated entities and third-party campaigners. The disclosure limit will be reduced from $13½ thousand to $1,000 per financial year. Foreign donations will be banned. It is also proposed that every disclosable donation under the new rules be published online in real time by the Victorian Electoral Commission. Other bodies and organisations involved in political fundraising or campaigning will face the same restrictions and scrutiny and be required to submit annual returns to the Victorian Electoral Commission.

Of course, self-interest is not entirely absent from the reforms proposed by the Andrews government. Significantly, the so-called membership fees paid to political parties will not be covered by the disclosure reforms. These include affiliation fees paid by unions to the Labor Party, representing an aggregate on membership fees paid by union members. These omissions should not be overlooked. They are gaping loopholes that would fundamentally undermine the intent and integrity of such legislation. A full disclosure regime ought to include membership fees and regular returns of party members, including different classes of members. However, these Victorian proposals are still a significant advance in transparency and deserve the close attention of other jurisdictions, federal and state.

They would certainly be an advance on the political donation laws in South Australia, which, whilst they have improved in recent times, are still quite inadequate to ensure proper transparency. The current donation disclosure threshold in South Australia is $5,191. There are more regular disclosure requirements imposed on political parties so that during a general election there are additional lodgement obligations. In the year of a general election, registered political parties and third parties must lodge a return for the month of January by 5 February, and then there are higher frequency returns in the lead up to the election.

There are no caps on donations, although South Australia does have caps on overall campaign expenditure—on the surface—and for candidates. In the case of lower house seats, a political party that endorses candidates for election in the House of Assembly districts is allowed election expenditure of $77,855 for each district in which it endorses a candidate. Parties must, by agreement with their individual candidates, allocate a portion of this cap to each candidate. The amount allocated to each candidate must not exceed $103,806.

I believe that neither the South Australian Labor government nor the Liberal opposition has demonstrated much appetite for political donation election expenditure disclosure reform in a real sense, because both sides seem comfortable with an opaque regime. Some indication of prevailing attitudes was given to me in a recent conversation I had with one of my parliamentary colleagues, who happened to be a Liberal federal member of parliament. As senators will be aware, I intend to contest the currently Liberal-held House of Assembly seat of Hartley in Adelaide's eastern suburbs. I'm a local. I've lived for over two decades in that particular area. Basically, I have lived in that area for virtually all of my life.

I was told by my colleague that the Liberal Party has a huge war chest committed to financing their campaign against me. It was stated to me that some $250,000 has been committed to efforts to hold onto the seat. When I questioned whether that would be a contravention of the campaign expenditure cap, I was told that it wouldn't be a problem because funds can be provided and spent by unnamed third parties. That points to a gaping loophole in the donation disclosure regime in South Australia, which both major parties can abuse. In announcing my intention to run in the March state election I anticipated that both Labor and Liberal parties would throw the proverbial kitchen sink at me. By the sounds of things, it will be a very expensive kitchen sink—a $250,000 sink, no less.

It's fair enough to wonder who those anonymous third parties would be. The most obvious candidate would be the poker machine industry—the owners and operators of the thousands of poker machines that suck money out of our state and where hundreds of millions of dollars are lost. Some $680 million a year is lost on poker machines, especially from those who are vulnerable. Money is being taken out of vulnerable communities, where over 40 per cent of those poker machine losses come from people who are addicted to those machines.

My challenge to Labor Premier Jay Weatherill and Liberal leader Steven Marshall is this: you should not take any donations from the gambling industry in the forthcoming campaign. If they can't give that undertaking, voters are quite entitled to ask, 'Who will be paying for the tidal wave of TV and radio and print ads, as well as pamphlets and letters, that will be heading our way in the next few months?' They will be entitled to ask, 'What interests can pull the strings of the government and the opposition?'

In any case, should my party, SA Best, secure representation in the South Australian parliament, we will introduce legislation to implement a radically improved political donation disclosure regime, particularly in relation to third parties. We will want to see more transparency, more real-time disclosure of donations—especially full coverage of so-called third parties engaged in political campaigning—as well as much improved disclosure of all sources of money and support provided to political parties. These are issues that would be a reasonable subject of community consultation and parliamentary debate, for the objective and outcome must be a radical improvement in transparency.

Support for such reforms will certainly be a factor SA Best will weigh in the balance should we be in a position to influence who will form the next South Australian government. Political donations are part of our democracy, but they are something that should take place in the open and not behind closed doors. I hope that all jurisdictions, federal and state, will make progress in agreeing on and implementing reforms that are urgently needed to preserve the health of our democratic politics.

I wasn't proposing to participate in the adjournment debate this evening, but I understand that Senator Xenophon has intimated that may very well have been his last speech to the chamber, depending upon the High Court. I suspect this was not your last speech to the chamber, Senator Xenophon, because if it was, you've had a complete personality change. The speech has been delivered in a low-profile, unflamboyant, discreet way and there's not a single journalist or, indeed, photographer in the gallery. So all of the indicators suggest that this isn't your last speech.

But against the possibility that it is, I do want to say to you on behalf of the government, while we do not wish you success in the South Australian election because we in the government are strongly of the view that the election of Steven Marshall as the Premier of South Australia is far and away in the best interests of the state of South Australia. Nevertheless, I did want, in the event that this is your last speech, to wish you well in a personal sense on behalf of the government and to thank you for your service in this chamber, which has been very conspicuous and very consequential. We have found that you have agreed with the government more often than you have not agreed with us. But, whether you've agreed with us or not, you've always dealt with us in a considerate, constructive and collegial manner.

May I say to you, Senator Xenophon, on my own personal behalf, that when the day comes that you leave us, I for one will miss you. I don't think every one of my government colleagues would say the same, but you and I have become friends. I've enjoyed our friendship. I hope it will continue and, in a personal sense as well, I wish you all of the best for the future, and I wish you success in the High Court as well.

Senator Xenophon, it would be remiss of me to not also wish you all the best. I'm reluctant to say this because we don't know whether this will be your valedictory speech or not, but, in any event, I associate my remark with the Attorney-General. I too have enjoyed the company of you on the journey in this place and we've been here for a similar time—a little bit longer for me. I do wish you all the best. Before I do announce the adjournment, in a very timely manner, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wong.

Thank you for that courtesy. I apologise I didn't quite get here before the Leader of the Government took his seat, but he hasn't gone yet. I missed the beginning of your speech, Senator Xenophon, and I know you said 'maybe', so I don't know if this is one of those teasing things that you do: 'I might agree. I might not agree. I might go. I might not'. But in the event that the 'maybe' is in fact the case: I think I sent you a text, which, as I chided you today, you hadn't responded to, when you announced you were running in South Australia and I said, 'I think I can safely say the Senate won't be the same without you—stay in touch.' Certainly, we disagree on a range of policy positions; we agree on some. I do appreciate, notwithstanding those differences, that you have dealt with me courteously and with my team courteously, and you have listened to us when we have put a view to you. I particularly remember when in government as finance minister, we had some difficult and personal negotiations on some very big issues, including the NBN and of course the stimulus package. We were very appreciative that we were able to resolve those issues. So, I share Senator Brandis's distance from your political objectives: he wants Steven Marshall elected and I want the Premier re-elected. Obviously, we have a different political perspective, but I do wish you well.

Senator Xenophon, it was a very poor way of exiting if you wanted no fuss; you've had some fuss. On that note, the Senate stands adjourned. We will meet again tomorrow at 9.30 am.

Senate adjourned at 19:54