I remind senators that thequestion may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.

Yesterday Ms Amanda Stoker was chosen by the Queensland Legislative Assembly to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC. I expect to be in a position to swear in Senator Stoker later in the day, when formal correspondence is received and certified by His Excellency the Governor-General. Senator Stoker's term of service commenced yesterday, and I note that this is the first time the Senate has had its full complement of 76 senators since the resignation of Senator Ludlam on 14 July last year. At 250 days, that represents the longest period the Senate has been incomplete since Federation.

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. The debate over whether to lower the statutory tax rate of 30 per cent for companies has largely focused on the tax rate being too high compared to other countries and the need for lower tax rate in order to be competitive and attractive to investment. The Business Council of Australia and the government continue to argue that Australia's company tax rate is amongst the highest in the world and that if we don't reduce it Australia will be left behind economically. The important point to note is that there are three different figures. There's the statutory rate, there's the average rate and there's the effective rate—and I will talk some more about these.

The Conversation, in its fact check on whether Australia's corporate tax rate is not competitive with the rest of the world, concluded:

It is true the corporate tax rate at 30% is higher than some other countries in our region, but it is average compared to G7 countries. Further, Australia’s franked dividends system means Australian shareholders already enjoy favourable tax conditions on income earned from their investment in companies.

Figures from the US government's Congressional Budget Office show Australia, while having a relatively high statutory tax rate, has a corporate average tax rate of 17 per cent and an effective corporate tax rate of 10.4 per cent. The top statutory corporate income tax rate is just one of several aspects of a tax code that determines the amount a company will face in corporate taxes.

In its comparison, the Congressional Budget Office also looked at the role of corporate tax rates when companies are looking to invest. It said:

When companies are deciding whether to operate in a particular country, they consider, among other factors, the total amount of corporate income taxes they would pay to that country relative to the income earned there. That ratio—the country's average corporate tax rate—encompasses all of the provisions of the country's corporate income tax code. The advantage of using the average corporate tax rate to evaluate investment incentives is that it can capture features of the tax code that are missed both by the top statutory corporate tax rate and by the effective marginal corporate tax rate.

The fact check also says:

… it is true our headline corporate tax rate of 30% is higher than that of our neighbours in the region. But given our system of dividend imputation, it is questionable at best to say that having a headline corporate tax rate higher than our neighbours makes us uncompetitive. Economic and political stability are big factors for businesses making investment decisions, as is available infrastructure, wage rates, other taxes, and the nature of the industry in question.

In fact, I have a report here from ACOLA on Australia's comparative advantage that lists a whole range of factors that are normally considered when you are deciding where to invest. They include, and particularly in relation to Australia, that 'Australia has a well-skilled and effective workforce', that 'Australia has a strong and respected research capability', and that Australia has 'a strong federal structure and rule of law'. It talks about 'institutions in the areas of law, markets and culture' and about 'an inclusive and cohesive society'. There is a range of different measures that are used to determine whether or not a country is the right place to invest in. It's not simply the tax rate.

The simple argument that Australia needs to lower its company tax in order to attract foreign investment is unsound. As I've just highlighted, companies consider a range of factors when deciding to invest, not just the statutory tax rate. Further research undertaken by the Australia Institute in examining the Foreign Investment Review Board figures confirms that a lot of investment comes from countries with lower company tax rates. The report states:

… by value 71 per cent of foreign investment applications come from countries with company tax rates lower than Australia's rate and by number a large 97 per cent come from countries with company tax rates lower than Australia's rate.

While a lower statutory company rate appears attractive in theory, there is little evidence to back up the claims being made by the government that it will boost investment, create jobs and raise living standards. Further, on the analysis conducted it appears Australia is competitively placed in relation to average and effective corporate tax rates.

In opposing these tax cuts, I want to make it clear the Nick Xenophon Team is not anti business. NXT has been and will continue to be of support to small businesses. We supported the government's initial company tax cuts for companies with a turnover of up to $50 million. We copped a lot of criticism for supporting that tax but we stand by that decision. We were accused of giving big multinational companies a tax cut at the expense of funding schools and hospitals. I would like to remind the chamber, and those listening to this debate, what sort of companies we thought would benefit from that tax cut. There was Credit Union SA, which is under the $50 million threshold; Barossa Fine Foods, a smallgoods maker located in Adelaide: Clean Seas Tuna, a commercial producer of kingfish; Golden North Ice Cream, between $10 and 50 million, which is a key employer in the country town Laura in the mid-north; and Robern Menz, a confectionary manufacturer, which is between $10 million and $50 million. So there was a range of companies that we supported. We've given these small and medium enterprises a tax cut. The interesting thing is that the government has not provided any data. We were prepared to go along with that—we were prepared to support it. But there's no data showing that that's actually flowed through to increased investment. There's no data showing us that we have increased pay to the workers who work for these companies. Nonetheless, we were happy to support that particular change. However, we're not prepared to pass a tax cut that will benefit many big multinational companies and their shareholder: companies like BP, Caltex, IBM, Google and Uber all stand to benefit from this bill.

It was pointed out by the Australia Institute that Australia's system of dividend imputation means Australian shareholders will not benefit from reductions in the company tax rate. Australian shareholders would notice any increase in company after-tax profit being matched by a loss in franking credits attached to their dividends. The government would be giving with one hand and taking back with the other. However, foreign owners cannot use franking credits, so for them there is an unambiguous benefit from an Australian tax cut, and that's probably why these multinational companies are pushing for it. It is clear that further company tax rates will be more beneficial for these foreign companies. At this point in time NXT believes its support for tax cuts for companies with turnover of up to $50 million strikes the right balance. Before we even consider supporting further company tax cuts, we want to see clear evidence that the initial tax cut we supported has had a positive effect on the economy. The government may point to the creation of 403,000 new jobs in the year to December 2017 as evidence, but most of the rise in employment growth in 2017 was an increase in the number of women employed in the health sector, with the NDIS by far the largest employer—hardly a direct result of corporate tax cuts.

In the United States, President Trump promised that his tax cuts would encourage companies to invest in factories, workers and wages, setting off a spending spree that would reinvigorate the American economy, but this is not the case. TheNew York Times stated in an article published on 26 February this year:

Companies have announced plans for some of those investments. But so far, companies are using much of the money for something with a more narrow benefit: buying their own shares.

Those so-called buybacks are good for shareholders, including the senior executives who tend to be big owners of their companies' stock. A company purchasing its own shares is a time-tested way to bolster its stock price.

But the purchases can come at the expense of investments in things like hiring, research and development and building new plants—the sort of investments that directly help the overall economy. The buybacks are also most likely to worsen economic inequality because the benefits of stocks purchases flow disproportionately to the richest Americans.

There is no evidence these large corporate tax cuts are matching President Trump's rhetoric, and we've been presented with no data to give us confidence that the rhetoric spruiked by Minister Cormann would be substantiated. The case for further company tax cuts has not been made, and we cannot support the legislation currently before the chamber.

I rise today to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. It is with great pride that I rise to speak in favour of an extension to the reduction of company tax for all businesses, not just those with turnovers below $50 million. This bill delivers on the remainder of the government's enterprise tax plan, introduced in the 2016-17 budget. The enterprise tax plan is the centrepiece of the coalition's economic agenda. We took this agenda to the 2016 election and we won, which gave the coalition a mandate to govern and the imprimatur of the Australian people to legislate the policies we presented to them. I will come back to this later.

The first element of that plan, legislated almost a year ago for firms earning less than $50 million turnover each year, was a watershed change for businesses around the country and particularly for small businesses earning between $2 million and $10 million in turnover each year, because it not only reduced the company tax rate for those businesses but also provided those businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million access to the small-business tax incentives, the instant asset write-off, pool depreciation and GST on a cash-flow basis. That position was fiercely resisted by those opposite, but we have already seen just how well it was received. It was a game-changing moment for many small businesses and allowed them the confidence to invest, grow and employ. I thank my crossbench colleagues who gave the government their open minds and the people of Australia their goodwill and good wishes when they supported that first tranche of company tax cuts.

Now we find ourselves at another watershed moment, and once again we ask for the open minds of the crossbench and call upon them to demonstrate their goodwill and good wishes towards the Australian people. It's the Australian people who are the beneficiaries of the economic growth that comes from cutting the costs of doing business. It's the Australian people who are the beneficiaries of increased competitiveness with our overseas counterparts. It's the Australian people who are the beneficiaries of the increased overseas investment in Australia. It's the Australian people who are the beneficiaries of the greater number of jobs created because companies can afford to invest and employ. And it's the Australian people who, with the demand for employment rising, will see a corresponding rise in real wages—a genuine sustainable and organic rise in wages, not a confected one through ambit claims for exorbitant minimum wage rises. History shows us that those, by causing sudden inflation and pricing workers out of the market, do more harm—do the most harm—to the very people they attempt to protect.

The crossbench has indeed demonstrated that good faith and goodwill. Senators Bernardi, Anning, Leyonhjelm and Martin have already committed their support for the enterprise tax plan, and I thank them sincerely. So, too, do I acknowledge our colleagues from One Nation, my fellow senator from Victoria, Senator Hinch, and our new colleague, Senator Storer, for approaching this policy change with an open mind, intellectual curiosity and a desire for evidence of cause and effect.

The vast majority of Australians don't know what goes on in the deliberations of the crossbench. Many of them came to this place in my cohort of 2016 and together we have grown into this chamber. I think it's important to acknowledge how seriously they take their jobs. Over the years, crossbenchers, whether they be Independent or minor party aligned, have put up with their fair share of political grandstanding, ideological bellyaching and the ugliest part of this job, which is bloody-minded opposition only for the sake of political expedience. And haven't we seen plenty of that in this debate!

I think that the crossbench knows that the evidence is in. Growth can be achieved through cutting company taxes, and we've already seen that demonstrated in the first 12 months since the first tranche of the enterprise tax plan. Jobs numbers do increase in response to companies investing back into their businesses. We've heard an awful lot about economics 101 in this debate. Ironically, the people who mention it most often have never sat in an economics lecture in their lives!

If it's such a good bill, let's vote on it! Why are you waiting?

My case in point! I have sat in economics 101—and 102, and 201, and 202, and 301 and 302, Senator Farrell. I have spent 20 years working in businesses that include some of Australia's largest employers, as well as my family's own small business. I understand the concept and the components of risk and return and investment decision-making. I understand the importance of business confidence and competitiveness. And, while I have fought very passionately in this place for government policy many times before, I can honestly say that I believe that the government's enterprise tax plan will be the most significant contributory factor to the growth and competitiveness of our economy that this place can deliver in this term of government.

Legislating company tax cuts for all companies, regardless of size—regardless of size—can and will make a significant difference to the competitiveness of Australian businesses, the attractiveness of Australia for foreign investment and the employment and wages of millions of Australians. Company tax cuts create opportunities for Australian businesses to invest, to grow and to employ.

No one policy is ever the only solution. But if the enterprise tax plan is not the silver bullet, it certainly is a stainless steel one. Those with a good head on their shoulders and an honest heart in their chest know there is now a pressing need for parliament to provide significant tax relief for Australian businesses. Yet the only thing that is standing in the way of the parliament doing so is the pig-headed recalcitrance and the self-interested political obstructiveness of the Labor Party. If logic tells us that company tax cuts and a reduction in the cost of doing business will encourage investment and growth, and if economics tells us that a reduction in company tax cuts and a reduction in the cost of doing business is a key driver of growth, what possible criticisms, other than political, can be levelled?

The opposition says we can't afford company tax cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Office, as well as Standard & Poors and other ratings agencies, say that we can. For five consecutive budget updates we have remained on track for a return to budget surplus in 2020-21. The three major credit ratings agencies have affirmed this forecast by reinstating Australia's AAA credit rating. Indeed, from this year we will no longer raise new borrowings to fund everyday expenditure, the first time since the GFC and a year earlier than at budget. The national grocery bill will now no longer go on the national credit card. Everyday expenditure is being paid for with everyday revenue. These are the welcome dividends of prudent fiscal management and a growing economy but, most importantly, during additional estimates, we heard confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Office that this strong fiscal performance has factored in the costs of a company tax cut already. Moreover, growth outlooks and business confidence indicators generated by the private sector providers and used by private sector businesses have also already factored in company tax cuts.

The Australian economy is in fact relying on this parliament to implement the drivers of growth, the drivers of confidence, the drivers of investment and the drivers of employment that we have promised. The opposition has claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that jobs will flow from company tax cuts but evidence from the tax cuts to small and medium businesses and the promise of company tax cuts to big businesses suggest otherwise. We've already delivered tax cuts to 3.2 million small and medium businesses, giving them the flex to grow their businesses and create more and better-paid jobs, and the results cannot be clearer: 400,000 new jobs in the last year alone, 300,000 of them full time, 15 consecutive months of jobs growth—the longest consecutive jobs growth on record—and the participation rate at its highest in seven years.

We only need to go to the headlines in today's newspapers to see Australia's largest employers have committed already to increasing investment and employment in Australia, should the company tax cuts pass. While it's always a giggle for us on this side when Senator Cameron bleats his favourite catch cry in a snide tone of 'trickle-down economics', the evidence is irrefutable. Senator Cameron, despite an astonishing array of cushy and well-paid jobs in industry superannuation, is clearly no economist. The opposition has said reduced company tax cuts won't make Australia more internationally competitive. Indeed, yesterday, with his career as a GP, who called on his knowledge of Economics 101, Senator Di Natale said, 'Why would we even want to compete with America?' I ask the crossbench to ignore the Greens entirely in this debate. Their grasp of economics is almost as thin as their grasp on reality.

Of course reducing the company tax rate will make Australia more competitive. Prior to January, the United States had the highest corporate tax rate of any country in the OECD. However, when President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the United States became open for business. He slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 per cent. Meanwhile, Australia continues to languish with the fourth-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. If we are to remain internationally competitive in a rapidly transforming world, we must reduce corporate tax rates. The coalition's enterprise tax plan will do so; it will cut our corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses, making Australia more competitive with countries like the US, like the UK and like Singapore. Without that second tranche of enterprise tax plan, our international competitiveness will be put at risk. Put simply: inertia is not an option.

The opposition has also said a decrease in company tax, even if it creates jobs, won't raise real wages. I can't understand the logic there because the laws of supply and demand certainly haven't been suspended. If we get the policy settings right, the economic benefits will follow. Continued jobs growth will eat into the capacity of the economy and put upward pressure on wages. We've already seen above average wages growth in the fastest growing sectors of the economy like health care and education. More importantly, however, the medium-term realisation of the full company tax cuts mean that while wages grow, inflation will not be jolted into action to erode the benefit of those wage rises. The economy is set to grow at a steady and reliable pace, and that is what the coalition's economic agenda is all about: improving confidence so that businesses invest, reliable economic growth, more jobs, more better paying jobs for all Australians.

The opposition has said that it's comfortable with a two-tiered company tax system. This is the situation we currently find ourselves in. The problem with a two-tiered company tax system is it creates a disincentive for growth. If we accept that it is in the interests of this country to encourage Australian businesses to grow, and I think even our colleagues on the other side would concede that point, then we simply cannot have a system where a business is disincentivised to grow beyond $50 million in revenue. A two-tiered system is exactly that—a perverse disincentive for businesses to grow. This will undoubtedly discourage innovation in these companies and seriously undermine the benefits of company tax cuts, and we must always remember that large companies were once small companies.

Of course, it's large companies that provide the biggest bang for the buck in terms of the economic growth that will come from lowering taxes on larger businesses. That was pointed out by my colleague Senator Paterson in a fascinating opinion piece that he submitted to the AFR. Large businesses employ more Australians, and certainly we've seen much of the employment growth in this term of government come from those very businesses. How perverse it is that we would consider punishing them now.

The opposition says that a company tax cut is a bonus for big business, a bonus for the top end of town. That is politically loaded opportunistic balderdash. Shame on the opposition for trying to convince the Australian people of ignorant guff. Australians aren't stupid. Companies don't exist independently of their employees, their owners, their shareholders, their customers and their suppliers. These are the people that a company comprises. Companies are little more than the people who own them, who work in them, who buy from them, who sell to them and who rely on them. It is these individuals who pay the company tax—through lower wages, lower investment returns and higher prices—not the business per se. It's those individuals who will benefit most from a company tax cut.

The opposition says that this policy is not about fairness. That is convenient rhetoric that simply disguises ignorance of the facts. I heard Senator Di Natale refer to Germany in his speech to the chamber yesterday. He conveniently left out the recent findings in that very country that demonstrated that not only does cutting corporate tax rates lead to jobs growth but those who most need our help—women, young workers, low-skill workers—are those who stand to benefit the most, and this in turn helps to redress economic inequality, an issue about which the Labor Party and the Greens purport to care so deeply. Surely this alone would be compelling enough, tax cuts leading to jobs and jobs growth for those who need them the most.

But the fact is the opposition don't really need convincing of the benefits of a company tax cut; they already know. It wasn't so long ago that Mr Shorten himself said:

Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.

Similarly, the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has also previously stated:

It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.

Quite extraordinary! I've got so many more quotes from so many more Labor—I was going to say luminaries, but that might be stretching the friendship a little bit. My favourite one comes from Penny Wong. She was quoted in Hansard as saying, only in 2012:

We understand that the cut in the corporate tax rate is important to increase productivity, to promote broad based economic growth and to encourage—

wait for it—

more investment and jobs across Australia.

Penny Wong also said—

Senator Hume, I remind you to refer to senators by their correct titles.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate also said, on Insiders in 2012—wait for it—'Lowering of the company tax rate is good economic policy.' I don't understand what has changed for these new apostles of socialism. At what point did they divest their party of the legacy of Hawke and Keating? At what point did they deny their own beliefs, beliefs that they have stated on the public record time and time again? How did they move so far to the left that they could make Lenin blush? The opposition leader, clearly, blindly mimics Jeremy Corbyn's and Bernie Sanders's rhetoric of class warfare. I don't want to insult Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, because for all their radical socialist tendencies at least they actually believe in what they say.

The basest political opportunism and expedience is the only explanation for this mindless opposition to good, sound, logical economic policy. Let me quote somebody else—the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, again. In an interview on Sky with Kieran Gilbert only a few years ago—I love this one—he said:

Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-eighties knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate. We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business …

Again, Mr Shorten said this to the ACOSS national conference:

Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.

Again to that ACOSS conference, Mr Shorten said:

… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.

In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller—and the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth.

Instead we want a level playing field regardless of the size of the company.

This is from Mr Shorten himself:

Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.

It's quite extraordinary how the rhetoric has changed in such an extraordinarily short period of time. What has happened? What has created this turnaround? I can't identify any single economic factor that would have contributed to a change in thinking. However, I can identify political factors. I can identify political expedience. And I think our crossbench colleagues can, too. It has become all too clear, all too apparent, that this opposition is the most anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs opposition that we have seen since Whitlam. The parliament knows it, the economists know it—the real economists, not those in Economics 101 we hear bleating from the other side. The media commentators know it. Those in the business community certainly know it. And the Australian people know it. We expect economic nonsense from the Greens, who dwell on the fringe, but this is a party auditioning to govern. By not supporting the enterprise tax plan, the opposition have abandoned their traditions and their principles. They have abandoned the Australian workers, who want more jobs and better-paid jobs, and, by denying our economy every opportunity to grow and flourish, they have also abandoned their credibility.

I implore my crossbench colleagues to see this opposition for what it is: a hollow shell of rhetoric, without shame, devoid of any ideas other than higher taxes and the redistribution of other people's money. But we know that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity. As Winston Churchill said, it's a little bit like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle. It just does not work. I implore my crossbench colleagues: look past the bloody mindless noise of the opposition and see this policy for the opportunity that it presents to our country. The evidence is compelling, and I know your hearts are in the right place. Your constituents have charged you with the responsibility of progressing our nation. Pass this bill and help progress a policy agenda that will keep Australia competitive, grow the economy, and allow businesses to invest and employ and create more and better-paying jobs.

This is not my first speech. I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. While I support the government's company tax cuts, I don't believe they go far enough or are being implemented fast enough. Unlike the recent US tax cuts, which were considerable and immediate and have resulted in almost instant benefit to American workers and the American economy alike, the gradual implementation of a five per cent cut over almost the next decade means that all Australians forgo a major benefit until its complete implementation. While some of my colleagues feel that it's a handout to big business or trickle-down economics, and our current rate of 30 per cent should remain frozen for all time, the simple fact is: as a country, we're already uncompetitive on the global stage. These reductions to 25 per cent will still only take us, as a nation, back to the middle of the pack globally and the high end of the scale in the Asia-Pacific region.

What we actually require are further reductions, making Australia a more attractive location to do business. I would suggest that there is not one person in this room who would shop anywhere but where they felt they got the best deal. Corporations are no different. They will do business where they feel they are getting the best for their company. Right now, Australia, in terms of our corporate tax rate, is offering one of the worst deals, and, as a result, many businesses have gone elsewhere. We need to compete for these companies' business. Further reductions will entice business to headquarter their operations here, while also keeping their money onshore. Such reductions in the rate will also enable companies to reinvest more of their profits in things such as upgrading their equipment and machinery and growing their business with human resources. We will see a flow-on to the Australian worker, with productivity and eventually real wage growth.

We have seen some of these benefits already, with Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defence contractor, earmarking some of its expected windfall as a result of Trump's tax cuts for their pension program. The company has also come out and stated it is going to increase its commitment to initiatives like employee training and charitable contributions, particularly for education, science and maths. Businesses like AT&T have also reported they will have more financial flexibility as a result of the US tax cuts. I have experienced firsthand the effect of Mr Trump's tax cuts. My two daughters own a small business in the United States. As a result of the immediate and substantial reduction, my girls have been able to do some much-needed upgrades on their premises, they have employed two more staff and they've increased wages for all staff to ensure they are retained into the future.

Recently we have seen the normally reserved IMF come out and say the US tax overhaul was a major factor in global growth rising to 3.9 per cent this year. They have also stated that the corporate tax rate reduction will contribute noticeably to US growth over the next few years.

As the minister highlighted, critically, the majority of the gains from the company tax cut are expected to flow through to the Australian worker in the form of increases in real wages. Those opposite always say they are for the worker and the embattled. Well, this is an opportunity for them to show it. We have seen successive Labor governments like that of Gillard in 2010 promise to cut company tax rates, with then Treasurer Wayne Swan, who you will all recall was voted the world's best Treasurer in 2011, saying:

Reducing company tax will create new jobs and grow the economy right around the country.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten himself, has previously criticised the Greens and their opposition to similar so-called big business tax cuts proposed by Labor. The arguments previously used by those opposite to support tax cuts in the eighties, nineties and 2000s equally apply today. As such, I call on those opposite and my colleagues on the crossbench to support Australia's workers and vote in favour of the government's legislation. Thank you.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. Just before I do so, I note a quiet moment's silence, particularly from the Labor Party, and that's rare in that place. We don't have any Labor speakers on the speakers' list at the moment. Senator Farrell, are they going to come on? Do they have anything to say, Senator Farrell? Do you have anything to say? Senator Farrell, I think you're a little bit embarrassed by the comparison between the government's enterprise tax plan and Labor's current tax plan, which is a tax increase on Australia's retirees and superannuants. Labor have never met a tax they didn't want to increase. The government wants to bring down taxes on business and on Australians to make our economy more competitive, get more people into work, see wages increasing and see investment flowing into this country. The fact that Labor are now denying that reality really shows how far they have fallen in their economic thinking.

The government's enterprise tax plan is in two parts, the first part of which has already been legislated. That's for firms with up to $50 million in turnover each year, and that was a watershed change for business, particularly at the smaller end of the spectrum, the $2 million to $10 million turnover businesses. It's not just the reduction in company tax rates. This is a comprehensive plan of small-business tax incentives, including such things as the instant asset write-off and the ability to pool depreciation and GST on a cash-flow basis. This is a plan to get business moving.

The second part of the enterprise tax plan obviously extends the tax cut—takes it forward in time—to all companies. It is a very important reform of the economy, particularly at a time when we are seeing international company tax rates on the decline. Particularly in our major competitor countries, we are seeing much lower tax rates at play. In France, which is not often thought of as a bastion of low taxes, the company tax rate is 15 per cent; in Hong Kong the company tax rate is 16½ per cent; in Canada it is 15 per cent; in Ireland it is 12½ per cent; in Singapore it is 17 per cent; in the United Kingdom it is 19 per cent and falling; and in the United States it is 21 per cent and falling. We are in a global economy and companies are looking at the best place to invest. Yes, it is not the only factor they take into account, but to argue that lowering company tax rates isn't essential for Australia's competitiveness internationally over the long term is just nonsense.

Let's do the counterfactual argument for a moment. Does keeping tax rates where they are, or increasing them, do one thing to put a person into a job, to keep anyone in a job, to get anyone a new job, to increase anybody's wages, to allow businesses to invest in plant and equipment, to allow businesses to invest in training or to allow businesses to invest in developing a new product, entering a new market or developing a new export market? Keeping taxes where they are, or increasing taxes, can do nothing in that regard. All we can do to drive growth in our economy in this way is to lower taxes. Keeping taxes where they are, or increasing taxes, is not going to drive investment, is not going to drive wage growth, is not going to drive employment growth, is not going to drive investment in plant and equipment, technology, new products and new services, and won't allow companies to expand their markets overseas. A company tax cut to improve the competitiveness of Australian businesses, to put more money back in the hands of Australian businesses, is the way of doing this. It is the correct approach and I urge the crossbenchers to consider it very seriously when the time comes to finally vote on this bill.

We've heard from my colleagues about some of the things that have been said by others on the topic of cutting the company tax rate. I think it's worth repeating again that in 2011—admittedly, that's a while ago—the current Leader of the Opposition said:

Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.

Did the rules of economics change between 2011 and now? I wouldn't have thought so. The shadow Treasurer, in 2015—only a couple of years ago—said, 'I would like to see the corporate tax rate come down over time.' And that's exactly what this bill does. It doesn't bring in a corporate tax rate cut tomorrow—as Senator Anning suggested we should perhaps do—it brings in a progressive reduction over time that will slowly bring the company tax rate down to 25 per cent. The shadow Treasurer went on to say, 'I have previously said that the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate.' Oh really! A 25 per cent corporate tax rate—that's what we should be aiming for? Well, surprise, surprise, that's what this bill does.

I mentioned earlier that perhaps the reason Labor has gone silent on this issue is that they don't like the comparison between a government which has delivered an enterprise tax plan—and wants to deliver the second round of that enterprise tax plan—and their own current policy, which is a tax increase focused particularly on self-funded retirees and pensioners. And that comparison is pretty damning.

We've seen Labor endorse a policy which sees a return to double taxation—so tax income with the company, and then tax it again when it gets to the retiree. That's a disgraceful policy. It should never have been suggested. It should be withdrawn immediately. It is the return of the bad old days of taxation policy, where taxation policy wasn't based on fairness and equity, where things like retrospectivity were commonplace, where death duties were seriously discussed or in place. I, and many other hardworking Australians, thought these ideas had been consigned to the dustbin of history and they now seem to be getting a run again, particularly in terms of the dividend imputation policy that Labor currently has. It is a cash grab. As I said earlier, Labor has never seen a tax it didn't like, didn't want to increase. So we've got a really stark comparison that, as we lead up to the next election, the Australian population will focus on more and more. They will begin to see what sort of economy Labor wants to deliver to this country, and it is not a pretty sight. Short-term tax grabs like the one Labor is proposing are not a great idea. They result in less money in the pockets of hardworking Australians.

In a contribution yesterday evening in this place, Senator Cameron basically said that the people receiving dividend imputation didn't deserve it. Well, I have a letter in my hand here that I began to discuss last night. I ran out of time, so I'm going to go through it again. It comes from a chap called Glen Diggins in Albany. Glen is a self-funded retiree, not a wealthy man, who was in the education department for 40 years—a teacher. He put aside for his own retirement; he saved around $550,000 in assets. He lost a bit of that in the global financial crisis. His balance was down to about $350,000 and, from that, he was deriving income last year of $33,000. I don't think anyone on the other side would call Glen a high-income earner or a wealthy man. A $350,000 superannuation balance is not an awful lot. Out of that $33,000 income, under Labor's tax plan, he would lose $10,000 of it. He would have his income slashed by one-third. Labor senators on the other side know this because they're receiving the same correspondence as I am from many, many retirees around Australia. That is why Labor have gone silent on this issue and that is why Labor don't want to talk about tax, because the comparison is too stark for them to cope with.

There are a few myths floating around about the enterprise tax plan. The first one is that it's unfunded. Of course it is funded. The PBO has said the fact that the budget baseline is improving is reflected in the most recent MYEFO, and that includes the company tax cuts. In fact, the company tax cuts have been in the numbers for a while, since the 2016 budget. The last five budget updates have shown a return to budget balance in 2021—five successive budget updates showing the same trajectory to a balanced budget. These tax cuts have been delivered, they're budgeted for, and they will drive growth and jobs in our economy. We've seen, particularly over the last 12 months, over the term of this government that the economic policies we're putting in place are driving jobs growth very, very strongly. We've seen 400,000 jobs created in the economy over the last 12 months, and that is a testament to good economic management. So the enterprise tax plan is fully funded, it is good for the economy and it should be put into place.

Something else that has been said is that the company tax cuts will somehow hurt workers. Again, how you could ever justify this intellectually is completely beyond me, and the Labor Party finds it pretty hard because they've said themselves, on various occasions, that company tax cuts will actually help workers by increasing employment and increasing wage growth. Julia Gillard, when Prime Minister, said:

If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs. And, if you are against growth and jobs, then you are also against increasing wages …

So when the Labor Party stand in this place to talk about it—they're not standing in this place today, but they've talked about it previously—they are, in the words of their own former Prime Minister, against economic growth, against jobs and against wage increases. The Labor Party are now on the record as being against all three of those things.

Professor Richard Holden from the University of New South Wales, in looking at the enterprise tax plan, said:

… higher company taxes reduce wages most for the low-skilled, women, and younger workers.

  …   …   …

The best, most credible evidence we have suggests that a cut in the Australian company tax rate is not a gift to the so-called "big end of town". It provides a benefit to businesses and workers in fairly equal measure. And the benefits to workers tend to flow disproportionately to women, young people, and the less skilled.

What a load of bulldust!

You're taking your economic knowledge from the Labor Party, are you, Senator Hanson-Young?

The third myth I'm going to deal with is that Labor can pay for their promises by not cutting company taxes. Labor themselves revealed the myth of this through their policy of a tax increase on pensioners and self-funded retirees. As I've said, the cost of the enterprise tax plan was included in the 2016 budget, which delivered a net improvement to the budget bottom line as a result of government decisions. At the last election, Labor promised to spend all of the funds set aside for tax cuts. They did this and still managed to rack up additional deficits of $16½ billion over the forward estimates. When Labor say they'll pay for their new promises by not proceeding with the company tax cut, they are just not telling the truth. Reversing all of the tax cuts we have delivered will not pay for one additional promise they make.

Myth No. 4—and I probably don't even need to deal with this one, really—is the idea that Labor are in any way supportive of small business. Labor have done nothing over the years for small business. To pay for the promises they made at the last election, they must reverse the $25 billion in tax cuts to small and medium-sized businesses that have already been legislated. Labor have not ruled out reversing tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses. They've rejected the idea that a business with a turnover of $2 million to $10 million is even a small business, showing a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works.

The final myth is that tax cuts only help big business—again, this probably doesn't need to be dealt with, because it's pretty laughable really. Tax cuts help all businesses. I was recently with the Minister for Finance, then the Acting Prime Minister, at a business called Legeneering in Western Australia. This is a business that started just a few years ago, in 2005, with three employees. It's managed, through hard work, to grow itself to be a business of around 200 employees. One of its major contracting businesses is Woodside, a business that started a about 30 or 40 years ago with one guy and an idea. That has grown to be a business that employs many thousands of people. It employs, through its associations, around 20,000 people Australia-wide—so there are flow-on effects. There we have businesses that show the interconnection of small, medium and large business. Woodside contracts to Legeneering, Legeneering contracts to smaller businesses in its local area, and the business tax cuts that affect one business flow down and allow medium-sized businesses to employ more people, to grow and to engage in the economy. They, again, are able to source from smaller businesses and continue the movement of that money through the economy to grow the economy, to put people into jobs and to grow wages. That presumably is what everyone in this place—or at least most people in this place—wants to deliver.

The enterprise tax plan fundamentally, at its core, is about Australia being competitive. It is a global marketplace. We do need to attract capital from overseas. We do need to be an attractive investment destination. We also need to be an attractive investment destination for money that is held in Australia. There is a significant pool of investment funds in Australian superannuation today. A lower corporate tax rate makes it more attractive for that superannuation money to be invested into Australian companies as well. We've got to reduce the tax rate to remain internationally competitive. As I've already mentioned, our international competitors—Canada, Singapore, the UK, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Japan and France—have all reduced their company tax rates in recent years. The US obviously has made a huge change to its company tax rate. We cannot remain stranded at 30 per cent for the majority of businesses, for larger businesses. We must begin a transition to a lower corporate tax environment to maintain our position as an attractive investment destination; to retain our position as a world leader in terms of our economic growth and our ability to provide good, high-quality jobs to the Australian people; to see our wages grow; and to see jobs and investment flowing to this country rather than everywhere else.

The international tax scene has changed over the last few years, and Australia has to respond to that. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. The government's enterprise tax plan is a responsible course of action. It's in the budget. It's been in the budget since 2016. We've now seen five budget updates where the return to budget balance has been over the same time frame. It can be relied upon. We've also seen Treasury modelling—which Labor particularly used to pay attention to—that said the tax cut would increase the size of the economy by around one per cent. That's a permanent boost to economic growth, it's a permanent boost to jobs and it will result—and everyone knows this—in higher wages as a result of more investment.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

And anyone who laughs at that really reveals how little they understand of the economy. A more competitive business tax environment encourages a higher level of investment in Australia for businesses large and small. It will benefit all hardworking Australians through increased employment and wages in the long run.

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 today. And, boy, haven't we heard the ideologues from the Liberal government out in force today, trying their hardest to convince people that if you give big corporate tax cuts to the big banks in Australia then somehow Australian workers will get rewarded with higher wages. Well, we all know that is just not true. And I've seen today of course that Pauline Hanson and One Nation are ready to sign on the dotted line to tick these tax cuts through. Well, Senator Hanson and One Nation are either sellouts—frauds—or fools, or possibly both. The truth is that this is a debate about what we prioritise as a parliament, what a government prioritises in terms of spending. It is a debate between everyday Australians and the interests of big business, corporate Australia and rich shareholders. That is what this is all about. It is the battlers, the workers and the future generation versus the banks, the CEOs and the rich shareholders. That is what is going on here.

Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They never have—not once—anywhere, ever. The theory that tax cuts generate wealth for the wealthy and that this wealth somehow trickles down to the rest of us has never been borne out by the facts. We just heard from the ideologues on the government side the theory underpinning the company tax cut we're voting on today. The concept has been completely discredited. It is delusional and dumb economics motivated less by evidence than by ideology. Governments raise revenue with tax. The lower the tax rate, the lower the government's revenue. With no revenue, there's no money to pay for services. Governments have two ways to pay for essential services like health, education, energy and even national defence: with revenue or with debt—which is, after all, just deferred taxation. Debt will be accrued to pay for this government's handout to corporate Australia, rich shareholders and the big banks.

The government likes to crow about the effects of the Trump tax cuts on the US economy. Let's talk for a short moment about the effects of the Trump tax cuts on debt. The independent and non-partisan US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation released its modelling of the Trump tax plan in November. It found the cut would push the US economy $1½ trillion into debt. That is a lot of money to ask future taxpayers to pay for a handout for billionaires today. Trump himself said his tax plan has made a bunch of billionaires much richer. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants to make billionaires and millionaires in this country much richer too. That is the priority of this government, not looking after the wages of everyday Australians or ensuring we have enough money to fund our schools and hospitals. We're always being told the tax cut will end up driving investment and stimulating jobs growth. The government is trying to push an agenda where Australia follows the example of Donald Trump. Do you know what the US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation said Donald Trump's company tax cuts would actually create and what the effect on the economy would be once you include all of the jobs and investment they are supposed to generate in theory? The answer was debt. They said Trump's tax cuts cost the budget $3 for every dollar it generates. That doesn't sound like a very wise investment to me. Three dollars lost for every dollar gained is the example Treasurer Scott Morrison thinks we should be following.

When we cut taxes, we cut our ability to pay for things we need. Those services don't stop being necessary because we are unable to afford them. Instead we put it on our collective credit card. That's what this government is asking Australians to cop today. This tax cut for big business and banks is a giveaway we're going to be paying for with generational debt. We have to pay it back with interest. The government says they have a plan to make sure it absorbs the cost of the cash giveaway within the budget and it doesn't jeopardise the return to surplus. I want to make something crystal clear to all those in the chamber today who believe taxation is theft and debt is theft deferred to a later date. I appeal to those who believe deeply that every year we run a deficit hurts future generations of taxpayers. We've heard this many times in this place. Why on earth would you give this government a $65 billion cheque to hand to big business and banks? We would have less debt and fewer deficits if this cut were blocked. The deficit this year is nearly $24 billion. That's how much of the operation of government we're funding with debt. We're set to add billions of dollars to the national debt, all of which has to be paid back with interest, so we can give more post-tax income to companies like the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and the big supermarkets like Coles and Woolies.

The question for the Senate is: do we want to spend Australian taxpayer money in this way? We in the Greens don't buy the budget emergency the government used to argue about. It seems to have been forgotten now their big business mates want a handout. We in the Greens, like many esteemed economists around the country, believe there is good debt and bad debt. If we're investing in productive infrastructure and a humane and strong social safety net, we're building a nation better equipped to pay back the debt many times over.

What we should be doing is building a nation that teaches its children better than any other nation in the world. We could do that if we wanted to fund it. We should be building a nation that offers its citizens clear air, clean water, clean streets and clean energy. We could do that if we wanted to pay for it. We should be building an economy that works for all of us. We should be doing that. We should be doing that by asking companies to pay into that nation-building mission. When we give them a discount on their contribution, we either wind back our ambitions as a nation or we fund them by paying more tax in other ways.

Asking everyday mum and dads to pay more tax so the mega rich corporate giants can pay less is not a fair way to fund our nation-building projects and to fund our country. We reject that as a choice because it's not fair, because it's not smart and because it's not right. But even more than that, we reject the idea that Australians should need to choose. This tax giveaway makes it harder for us to pay for the things we need. But it also makes us choose between what we're about to lose. The cost of this will be $65 billion. We don't have to give that to media barons who stoke resentment and fear. We don't have to give money to oil and gas companies to make it cheaper for them to pollute our water, our sky, our farmlands and our planet. We don't have to give money to pokie empires that prey on vulnerable members of the community and line their own pockets with other peoples' misery and desperation. We don't have to give money to coal companies to help them sabotage action on climate change. And yet that is what we're being asked to do today.

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google and IKEA aren't going to stop avoiding tax just because we lower the rate from 30 to 25 per cent. They don't want to pay tax at all. They try their hardest to get out of paying tax: through a complex series of profit-shifting arrangements, these big companies transfer income from where it's earned to where it's taxed; in every step of the process, they take a little off the top for themselves in transfer costs. They're gaming the system. And when we finally end up counting what's owed in tax, we find that these companies have whittled their tax obligations down to nearly nothing.

Everyday Australians can't do those sorts of tax tricks that these big multinational companies get away with. They're left to pick up the tab for the tax cut that simply means it takes fewer steps for a company to hide money from the tax collector. We're raising less revenue by giving money to companies who aren't paying their fair share of tax in the first place. We're paying their bills in the form of debts and cuts and sacrifices and hardship. If this company tax cut goes ahead, all that will happen is companies will have more post-tax income to hide in their tax shelters. Are we really going to support a plan that gives more money to multinationals who aren't paying the appropriate rate of tax on their income already?

Let's not be naive and imagine these tax-shifting corporates are going to invest any more in Australia as a result of this tax cut. Their investment decisions are not contingent on how high the headline rate of taxation is; their investment decisions are determined by how much tax they end up paying in the end. The tax rate is just where you start at. Where you end up is determined by how much we're giving these companies in deductions, offsets, subsidies and incentives. Once you factor all of those things in, the government's argument unravels.

This Liberal government focus on the headline because they don't want Australians to focus on the detail. The headline rate doesn't matter if nobody is paying it anyway. The average corporate tax rate in Australia, according to the CBO, is 17 per cent. Seventeen per cent is the fourth-lowest average corporate tax rate in the G20. The government think Australia is a high-taxing country. Well, they're wrong—the data proves it. We're a low-tax country at a time when we're being asked if we should become an even lower one. That means less revenue to fund the services Australians need. We are being told that if we don't we are going to lose money to every other country in the world with a higher headline company tax rate. The race to the bottom. The arms race on tax cuts.

But in looking at the headline statutory rates around the world, you see that if we're really trying to chase company tax rates why isn't the government concerned about competing for global capital against countries like Uzbekistan or Oman, with a 12 per cent tax rate—Uzbekistan has 7.5 per cent. The reason this government talks about the United States only is that it doesn't really care about being competitive; it just cares about cutting.

Companies invest for all sorts of reasons. We're not missing out on investments that are floating over to Uzbekistan. We're attracting investment from all over the world because we've got a smart, healthy, stable democracy. It is safe, secure, strong and sustainable. We've got that way and we've got that economy here in Australia because we've been investing in smart people, through investments in early childhood education, in schools and in tertiary education. Companies want the best and brightest to work for them. They come to Australia because that's where you're going to find the best and brightest. We made that happen by funding these services. We funded these services with tax, with revenue—taxes collected by the government. We're healthy because we invest in universal health care and support strong public hospitals and clinics. We don't bankrupt people for getting sick. We help them get better. Companies want to hire healthy and productive workforces. That's what Australia has. We have a healthy population, because we've built it. We built it with government revenue, government revenue that has come from tax.

The private sector might build and produce great cars, but it doesn't matter how good your car is if you have no roads to drive it on. We built the roads with government revenue generated by tax. When we lose tax in a handout to mega-rich corporations, we lose the ability to keep the Australia we want, the prosperous, egalitarian nation that we are.

Let me be clear, this is not a tax cut for battlers. This is a tax cut for bank executives and rich shareholders. This tax cut hurts pensioners, single parents, teachers, nurses and students. It hurts mums and dads who are struggling to put food on the kitchen table. It says that rather than spending money on you—Australians who are working every day, struggling with low wage growth and struggling to afford the next round of school uniforms or the next school excursion—the government wants to spend money on ExxonMobil.

It's worth noting the cynicism and hypocrisy that surrounds this tax cut. The government says it opposes Labor's franking credit policy because it means less money for those who pay the bills with those credits. Franking credits are refunds on money that companies pay in tax. If companies pay less tax, self-funded retirees get paid less in tax refunds. You can't seriously say you care about the income of age pensioners and retirees and then turn around and vote for this crappy, crappy bill. There are millions of Australians in every corner of the country who need the help of the people in this place to vote this bill down. In passing this legislation, what we're being asked to do at the moment is to hurt them rather than help them. That's the real choice this bill represents.

We've heard that Pauline Hanson and One Nation want to vote with the government to send this tax cut through. When One Nation votes with the government, they will vote to back billion dollar empires over battlers. When One Nation votes for this bill, they're boosting multinational profits over boosting pensions. When One Nation votes for this bill, they will be making Google's tax bill cheaper. They will be doing nothing to help lower the energy costs and power bills of everyday Australians.

What we're not hearing about is what we're going to lose if this bill passes. What is at stake is more than just a budget figure: it's the ability to fund every school in every state fully and fairly; and it's the ability to turn around a VET sector that is on life support. We will lose the ability to guarantee clean water and air for every generation of Australians yet to come. It's about choices, and the government is asking the Senate today to choose big banks, corporate CEOs and rich shareholders over everyday Australians. With this bill the Senate is being asked to choose fat cats in the big banks over nurses and teachers right across the country. As a nation, we can spend our money on anything we want. We don't have to chase Donald Trump into an economic black hole. We don't have to pump more money into tax shelters so that billionaires can get bigger bonuses. We don't have to water down what makes Australia great. We can actually invest this money into the services that will invest in everyday Australians.

I put it to One Nation and the other crossbenchers in this place: who are you going to back? Are you going to back everyday Australians, working mums and dads, and future generations or the greasy pockets of big corporate CEOs and rich shareholders? Are you going to back the big banks, Woolies and Coles, and Google over everyday Australians? It's a choice that the crossbenchers need to make. The Greens are firm, as we've always been. We will back Australians and the community over big banks and fat cats any day of the week.

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. Australia needs this bill to be passed because we must reduce our company tax rate to remain internationally competitive and create more jobs. As we transition from the mining investment boom, it is vital that we give businesses every opportunity to invest, innovate, grow and employ more Australians. This government wants to give all hard-working Australians the opportunity to earn more and be rewarded for their efforts. Our enterprise tax plan is a critical step in our economic transition, as we look to encourage private investment across the economy to generate broader based economic growth.

This legislation is designed to deliver the remainder of the government's plan to cut the company tax rate. This follows the passage in May last year of legislation to cut the company tax rate for companies with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million. This has helped around 3.2 million businesses, employing over 6½ million workers. However, we cannot afford to stop there. While the cut in company tax for companies with a turnover of less than $50 million is a good start, Australia must continue with the second stage of this reform to make the nation's company tax rate internationally competitive. If we fail to do so, we will be effectively applying a handbrake on the growth of some of our most innovative businesses. It would be a truly perverse outcome if the reward for growth for firms currently under the $50 million were a higher tax rate. That's why early passage of the full enterprise tax plan is necessary.

Under the plan, the turnover threshold to qualify for a lower tax rate will be progressively raised to cover all companies by 2024-25 before the company tax rate is reduced to 25 per cent for all companies by 2026-27. The plan is fully funded as a 10-year phased approach. It provides certainty to businesses, especially those looking to invest without a concentrated short-term impact on the budget. The government will lower the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all companies, as I said, by 2026-27. This will be the lowest corporate tax rate since the mid-1960s, and it will benefit all Australians. Our package of reforms, largely driven by the corporate tax rate cut, is expected to boost business investment and the level of GDP by just over one per cent in the long term.

In recent years, a large number of our international competitors, including Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Japan and France have reduced their company tax rates, and in December last year the United States slashed business tax from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. If Australia's rate remains stranded we will have one of the highest tax rates in the OECD, making it much harder for Australian companies to compete fiercely in an increasingly competitive global market.

International investors will take their capital and the resultant jobs to countries where it's cheaper to do business—it's obvious. The IMF's World economic outlook released last year warned that the US corporate tax cut plan will cut our GDP by one per cent and threaten the sustainability of our tax system unless we respond, and this is consistent with Treasury's analysis. The international tax scene has changed; the case for our response is now overwhelming and our plan is a responsible one.

As Treasury has indicated, the impacts on Australia of US tax reform could, in effect, be offset by the implementation of the government's enterprise tax plan. Treasury modelling released at the 2016-17 budget estimated that our tax cut would increase the size of our economy by around one per cent—a permanent boost to economic growth and jobs, as well as high wages as a result of more investment. Australia benefits from our openness to investment, allowing us to build on our resources, employ more Australians and trade our goods and services on the global market. A more competitive business tax environment would encourage higher levels of investment in Australia for both small and large businesses, and, of course, would benefit hardworking Australians through increased wages and employment in the long run. As I said, this bill will cut our company rate to 25 per cent.

Until recently, we had nearly four decades of bipartisan support for business tax reform. Regrettably, the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and his shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, have reversed their previous strong support for a more competitive company tax rate for political—of course, not policy—reasons. Their opposition to our plan means Labor now wants higher taxes, reduced investment, fewer jobs and lower wages.

Bill Shorten is reported to have told business leaders to, 'expect nothing from a Shorten Labor government.' Those opposite have absolutely no respect for small business and they refuse to tell them what their secret plan is to reverse the already legislated tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses. Of course, reversing these taxes will mean higher taxes on Australian jobs. Those opposite do not have a plan. Six years of fiscal vandalism under the Labor-Green alliance left our economy in a mess, and now those opposite are even less responsible and more of a risk to our economic security. Bill Shorten and Labor will spend and borrow more, meaning higher taxes, fewer jobs and more debt for future generations to pay off.

Labor knows that company tax cuts will boost jobs, will lift wages and will increase investment, because they used to support reducing the company tax rate. In Chris Bowen's own words, 'It is a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.'

According to Treasury modelling, the cost of the Shorten opposition's announced new taxes on the Australian economy will be over $200 billion. That equates to over $8,000 for every Australian. This is a direct hit on Australian families, households and businesses, with new taxes on everything from housing and investment income to superannuation. Of course it will increase the cost of living. It will cripple small businesses and hurt our economy, and we will fight against Labor's plan for new and increased taxes which will impact on pay packets, homes, electricity and enterprises.

After Labor racked up $240 billion in deficits over six years, debt would be on track towards $1 trillion without our sensible savings. We have halved the growth in spending from a four per cent increase per year under Labor to 1.9 per cent. The coalition has reduced growth in debt by two-thirds and therefore reduced the burden on our future generations. And we are on track to balance the budget in 2020-21. You opposite have no plan whatsoever. You will spend and you will borrow more, which will mean higher taxes, fewer jobs and more debt, as I said, for future generation.

We have heard these myths. Senator Brockman spoke about myths, and I also want to focus on a number of these myths that those opposite have been seeking to peddle to justify their position. The first is that the enterprise tax plan is unfunded—wrong. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office put an end to this lie, stating:

The fact that the budget baseline is improving is reflected in the most recent MYEFO … And … that includes the company tax cuts.

The cost of these tax cuts was included in the 2016 budget before the last election, which delivered a net improvement in the budget bottom line as a result of the Turnbull government's decisions. The budget has consistently projected return to balance in 2021 over five successive budget updates. Tax cuts have been delivered and are budgeted to go further, to drive more jobs and growth in our economy. More than 1,100 jobs were created every day in 2017, and we have had the longest stretch of job creation in our recorded economic history.

Labor also says that company tax cuts would hurt workers—wrong. The only thing standing between Australian workers and a pay rise is the Labor Party and Bill Shorten. As then Prime Minister Gillard said:

If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs. And, if you are against economic growth and jobs, then you are also against increasing wages …

Another myth is that Labor can pay for its promises by not cutting company tax—wrong. The Parliamentary Budget Office confirmed in evidence at the last Senate estimates that Labor not only went to the last election factoring in a full reversal of the government's tax cuts but spent the entire proceeds and still had combined higher deficits of $16.5 billion. At the last election, Labor promised to spend all the funds set aside for the tax cuts. They did this and still managed to increase deficits, as the Parliamentary Budget Office has confirmed, by $16.5 billion over the forward estimates. So, when those opposite tell us that they're going to pay for their new promises in health, education or infrastructure, their promises really aren't worth the paper that they're written on. Reversing all of the tax cuts we have delivered does not pay for one additional promise that they are now making. For example, in one week, from 18 to 24 February alone, those opposite made almost $300 million of spending announcements in Mackay, in Rockhampton and in Preston in Melbourne. You're making promises that you know that you can't pay for and therefore giving false hope to those communities. It is pretty simple economics: you can't spend your money twice. Every dollar in new spending that Labor claim is paid for by not proceeding with company tax is a lie.

Another myth is that you support small business—wrong, wrong, wrong. You are waging a war on small business. You would reverse our small-business tax cuts. Labor's new tax on trusts will hit at least 200,000 small businesses. Your energy policies, including the 50 per cent renewable target like the one you have in South Australia, would increase power bills and pose a risk to reliability for small businesses. You want to reverse the independent umpire's decision to modify Sunday penalty rates, which means small businesses would pay higher penalty rates than big businesses that do deals with big unions.

Labor will roll over to increasingly militant unions who have made their intentions clear: they will demand the power to strike, more power to run businesses and inspect their books, and more deals to entrench their powers. Under a Shorten government, union lawbreakers will become lawmakers. You just have to listen to the drivel that Sally McManus gave us yesterday. Here's a woman who doesn't believe in obeying the law. She will be puppet-master-in-chief. She and the CFMEU thugs will run those opposite. You over there will be puppets in their war against Australians.

To pay for the promises that you made at the last election, you will reverse the $25 billion in tax cuts that have already been legislated for small- and medium-sized businesses. You have rejected the idea that a business with a turnover of $2 million to $10 million is even a small business, showing your fundamental lack of understanding about how business works. Many small businesses that sell large assets have high turnover rates, but turnover does not equal profit. So if you sell farm equipment or cars in the local town or work in the construction industry as a builder or a supplier of products, the Labor Party doesn't think that you qualify as a small business.

Another myth is that company tax cuts only help big business—wrong. The head of the Council of Small Business, Peter Strong, recently called for implementation of our plan because, 'We want big business to also get the cut because they'll put the money with us.' He said, 'They need us and we need them.' Small business leaders have been calling on parliament. Their chorus has now been added to with, yesterday, the Business Council—some of Australia's biggest employers—committing to investing more in Australia with a more competitive tax. If large businesses invest more, smaller businesses benefit both as customers and as suppliers.

Bill Shorten used to believe that:

… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.

… the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth.

All of this clearly means that Bill Shorten and Labor do not have a plan to strengthen our economy. Six years of fiscal vandalism has left our economy in a mess.

Earlier this year, the member for McMahon, who aspires to be our Treasurer—God help us!—endorsed a paper on negative gearing written by academics from the University of Melbourne. Of course, the shadow Treasurer didn't mention the main results: that prices will go down and rents will go up. He also conveniently failed to mention that the paper assumed a 100 per cent death tax. Indeed, page 9 of that paper states:

A household who dies unexpectedly has all his assets, taken by the government and liquidated if needed. After settling outstanding debt, the remaining assets are distributed equally to every surviving household in the economy.

So not only do you want to rip out $60 billion from more than one million retirees and pensioners, not only do you want to jack up taxes on investments, not only do you want to smash house prices and not only do you want rents to go up but you are now spruiking academic research that models prohibitive death taxes. Where is this coming from? Perhaps it's from the member for Fenner, Andrew Leigh, who once wrote an entire article urging us to bring back death taxes. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer is looking to Labor's former Greens alliance members for inspiration—after all, it was only a year ago that the Greens began a push for death taxes. So that's where we're going: the abolition of negative gearing and the imposition of death duties—potentially on the family home, because we know that it has been discussed at Labor conferences. That's where we are heading, because when those opposite run out of money they will be coming for moneys out of the pockets of ordinary Australians.

The coalition will fight for Australians against those opposite every step of the way. We, the government, have already passed legislation that backs small businesses by reducing their tax rate to 27.5 per cent, starting with businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million in July this year. In total, the legislated changes to date will support 3.2 million businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million, improving things for 6.7 million hardworking Australians.

Of course, our enterprise tax plan is only one element of the Turnbull government's National Economic Plan for Jobs and Growth. Along with our plans to reduce the tax burden on Australian businesses, we are opening up new markets in our region for Australian exporters through comprehensive free trade agreements. We are investing $70 billion in productivity-enhancing infrastructure across Australia. We are delivering on a comprehensive 20-year Defence industry plan. We are implementing significant reforms to improve competition and choice for Australian consumers across the economy, and in banking and financial services. We are securing record funding for Australian schools and hospitals. We are protecting Australia's revenue base through some of the world's toughest anti-tax-avoidance laws. We are acting to secure our future and create jobs for all Australians.

But, of course, if those opposite, God forbid, were ever to return to the Treasury benches, we know—history has told us—what we would likely see. Let's go back to when Labor were last in power. We have to remind Australians of what life under Labor was like before: double-digit inflation—we know interest rates went up 18 per cent on mortgages; there was a huge government debt and we got the recession we had to have. That's what life under Labor will be like— (Time expired)

I'm really pleased to be rising to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 today and the Greens' opposition—total and complete opposition—to the prospect of giving over $60 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town, to big business. We have a choice, and this bill is a stark statement of the choice that we have in this parliament. We have a choice. We can either give a $65 billion handout to big business or we can have that $65 billion to spend. We have a choice. We can be working to build a more egalitarian, more equal, society or we can be increasing the inequality in our society by increasing the profits to big business, and not having the money to spend on the services, to spend on parts of Australian society that are desperately in need of investment.

The core things that are concerns, that are problems in Australian society today, aren't because big businesses aren't investing because they think their tax levels are too high. It's not that they are taking their money elsewhere because of the siren call of lower taxes, which is basically the core element of the government's reasoning as to why we need these tax cuts: 'If we don't have tax cuts, businesses are going to take their money and invest elsewhere.' That's not what's going on. Basically, we know there is absolutely zero evidence that giving businesses that $65 billion in tax cuts will mean that there is more investment here. There is absolutely zero evidence that by giving big business $65 billion in tax cuts that it's somehow going to trickle down and improve conditions and improve wages for ordinary Australian workers. We've been waiting for the trickle-down effect for a very long time. That's the core of the government's argument: that you give tax cuts to big business, then somehow eventually the benefits are going to trickle down and raise the conditions for ordinary workers and life is going to improve.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

That's right. It just doesn't happen. We have had more than 30 years of neoliberal economics. In every country where trickle-down economics has been pursued, basically ordinary workers are waiting for the small drops to start falling. In fact, they are watching instead the benefits trickle up; they are watching instead things being taken away from them and being put into the pockets of the big end of town. We know what will improve conditions for business and ordinary Australian people and will be good for our society overall—that is, investment in infrastructure to cope with our growing population; investment in a skilled workforce, in our schools, TAFE sector and universities; and investment in quality social services. If you ask ordinary Australians what needs to change in Australian society, they don't reckon big business need a bit more money in their pockets; they want to see decent schools. They don't want to see rundown schools in the suburbs of Australian cities and towns around our country, or overcrowded schools built in growth areas because we are not keeping up with the investment required to educate our growing population.

They want to see the end of homelessness. They think back to 20 years ago when we did not have people homeless on the streets of our cities. When I was a young adult, you walked through the streets of Melbourne and did not see people struggling, unable to afford a place to live. We can make these choices. We can invest in public and social housing. We can deal with the issue of homelessness and create a situation where everybody in Australia has the chance to thrive. It would help business if their workers could know their children are well cared for in quality childcare services instead of struggling with months-long waiting lists. Women can't return to work because they can't get a childcare place. Businesses need a skilled workforce. We have a desperate skills shortage in some areas of our economy, which is why we are bringing in nurses from the Philippines, because we are not training enough here in Australia. We need to bring in skilled workers because our technical and vocational education system has been stripped to the bone and is no longer providing the necessary services. That is where we need investment in Australia.

We know we have working poor. Again, that is a change in my adult lifetime. It used to be that if you had a job, you could at least afford to live, feed your kids and put shoes on their feet, but in order to survive now in a casualised, contracted-out workforce, so many people work two or three jobs and even then struggle to gather the money to keep home and hearth together. We won't somehow increase wages by hoping for the trickle-down effect of a corporate tax cut. There are many other ways. We could invest in infrastructure and other services and guarantee increases in wages, whether in the public service or the private sector. We can invest in all sorts of other services much more efficient at both creating jobs and creating economic activity in Australia, rather than this wish, hope and prayer that giving away $65 billion to the big end of town will improve conditions here.

This goes to the heart of the sort of Australia we want to have, of our democracy, as to whether the votes of ordinary people hold sway or large companies get what they want because of their continued push. The government tries to sell it to the community and say, 'If we invest in big business, that will have benefits for you,' without any guarantee that's going to happen. We know that there is no connection between a company tax cut and wages. We know that, in fact, company executives get bonuses that are based on cutting wages and worker numbers. We've even seen ads from the Australian Banking Association saying that 80 per cent of their profits go to shareholders—in which case, if you increase their profits, it is highly unlikely that workers are going to see a cent of it. If we are really concerned about wages a much better way of increasing wages is to guarantee wage increases in the public sector, rather than having wages flatlining and going backwards because of casualisation and contracting out. If we had a public sector wage rise, that would then force the private sector to follow. The Greens have put forward a policy to increase public sector wages across the board for non-executive workers by four per cent a year for the next five years.

In terms of increasing productivity, increasing the overall benefits to society and improving the conditions that businesses need to thrive in Australia, we need to invest in infrastructure. The cost of congestion in our growing cities is massive. That's what I hear companies talking about: 'Let's get our cities working properly! Why isn't our government investing in the infrastructure that we need so that we get sufficient transport?' It would mean workers don't have to be stuck in traffic for four hours a day and can actually get to work fresh. If the transport system is working well they are better able to get their goods around town. There is only one way that we can improve the infrastructure in our cities today and that's to invest in substantial public transport. That is the only way you can shift the huge volumes of people who are trying to get to work around our cities today.

I think of it as saying: 'If you've got $65 billion to spend, what would you spend that on? Do you give it to big business—maybe it would trickle down to workers and maybe it would mean that they get a tiny bit more investment in Australia—or would you spend that $65 billion on investing in the infrastructure that would mean we could deal with our congestion problems in our cities today?' The Melbourne Metro, the underground metro system that is now being built in Melbourne, has a price tag of about $10 billion. But we know that that is not even going to touch the sides of what's needed in terms of investment in public transport in Melbourne. There are already plans on the board for Melbourne Metro 2, which, again, is just what's needed to keep up with the growth of the population in Melbourne. That's what we should be saying: 'Yes, federal government money, supported by state government money, should go into those public transport services.' I expect that Melbourne Metro 2 will probably require another $10 billion. But it is absolutely needed.

We could spend the billions of dollars on tax cuts, or we could spend it on infrastructure that is actually going to transform our cities, that is actually going to mean that we have cities that work; otherwise, 10, 15 or 20 years down the track, with our growing population, our cities will be at an absolute standstill. That's what's going to cause businesses to flee. We know why companies like investing in Australia at the moment. It is because our cities basically do work, it is because we have stability, it is because we have social networks that mean we have well-functioning cities. But if you end up with a level of dysfunction through massive population growth that's not being catered for by that investment in infrastructure, that's the sort of thing that is going to turn companies away. They will not build a new facility in Melbourne or Sydney because it's just not working—the workers can't get to work, they are going to be stuck in congestion, and their goods are going to be stuck on tollways for a couple of hours in order to get somewhere.

We could be investing in high-speed rail. If we want to work out how we're going to deal with our growing population, that's the sort of infrastructure investment we need. We are told, no, that's unaffordable—it's too much. It is affordable. We have a choice. We can invest in that sort of city-shaping, country-shaping infrastructure, or we can fritter money away by giving a $65 billion tax cut to big businesses, which is going to have very little impact on the overall direction of our society. The Greens are absolutely firm that this is the wrong way to go. We have been clear throughout—it's basically philosophical for the Greens. We know that what needs to happen is we need to reduce inequality in our society. We need to improve the services and the infrastructure and reduce inequality, not give away tax cuts that are just going to increase that inequality.

The Labor Party have been all over the place. At the moment they are saying they are against these tax cuts. But, as the government has been saying—and others have been very clear—Labor don't know where they're at. The shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has been quoted many times in this debate, and I think it is worth re-quoting him. He actually thinks that corporate tax cuts, in the long term or over time, are a good thing but that now is not the time to do them. In his recent book, he said:

… the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate.

So it's very unclear as to where the Labor Party lie—

Senator McAllister interjecting—

Senator Rice, could you resume your seat, please. Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order?

Point of order: there are a number of consistent interjections in the chamber. Could I draw your attention to the fact that other senators are interjecting while Senator Rice is speaking.

Senator Whish-Wilson, as you know, this can be a lively chamber at times. I have heard some conversations; very few. There is no point of order. Senator Rice, you have the call.

It's all right, I can cope with it—but it does make it rather unparliamentary, I think. I look forward to the Labor Party staying firm on this and I look forward to the Labor Party actually saying that corporate tax cuts are not the way to go, because that is the direction that we need to head in. It would be extremely disappointing if, at some time down the track when we have a Labor government, they suddenly also fall into this myth that corporate tax cuts are going to be good for Australia, good for our economy and good for our society. It's very clear: if you look at countries around the world, at the places where people really want to live, that rate the highest in terms of satisfaction and happiness, they are not the areas that have got low corporate tax rates.

Then we've got the others on the crossbench. I think it's very sad that they have seemingly been bought off. They have been given a few bits of silver for their pet projects and, suddenly, they are all over corporate tax cuts. One Nation say that they are there for the battler, but the benefits of these corporate tax cuts for the battler are next to zero. We don't know what deal has been done with them. This isn't democracy at work; this is just playing various people off and offering them bits that they accept, rather than fundamentally saying what's in the interests of Australia. It's exactly like when Senator Hanson backed the $315 income tax cut for the richest Australians.

It's very clear—we have a choice. Going in the direction of these corporate tax cuts is not the direction that Australia needs to head in. If we want to have a society that functions well, that works well, that reduces inequality, where democracy and what's in the interests of ordinary people are what hold sway, then going in the direction of corporate tax cuts is not the way to go. We have a choice here in this parliament today, and I urge the crossbench to join the Greens in speaking out loudly and voting against this direction of increasing inequality in society. We've got a choice here. We can knock back these corporate tax cuts, and then we can move on towards creating a more equal, more caring and more sustainable economy and society for Australia.

I, too, rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 and I do so with great pleasure, also recognising that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this chamber for many years—one that is actually vitally important for the prosperity of our nation.

I was just sitting there, listening to Senator Rice, and I almost could not believe what I was hearing. In fact if any year 7 economics and business students actually read the transcript of Senator Rice's contribution this morning or tried to apply her version of economics to their own year 7 economics exams they would fail dismally. We heard, and we hear constantly now, from those opposite about trickle-down economics and we hear about the big end of town. But that's all rhetoric. What we also just heard from the previous contribution was all about the desire for infrastructure expenditure on roads and other large projects. We, too, believe in infrastructure spending, but what any year 7 economics student knows is that there is no such thing as government money.

What we heard is a long list of where we should be spending money. But, of course, from the Greens there was absolutely nothing about where that money is going to come from. They are completely divorced from reality. As the great Margaret Thatcher reminded us, there is no such thing as government money. That money is taxpayers' money. It comes out of the pockets of hardworking Australians and Australian companies who actually employ those Australians.

This measure, which I am very proud of, is a pillar of the coalition's economic plan to ensure that Australia remains competitive as nations all over the world realise a lower corporate tax rate is the key to economic growth and creation. So let's have a look at the facts here in Australia so far. Let's get beyond the rhetoric of trickle-down economics—I actually think they don't understand the concepts of what they're spruiking. But let's have a look at this.

We do live in a global economy. There is no 'Fortress Australia'. Our economy and our future wealth generation in terms of jobs, and all of the money that the Greens want to spend on infrastructure projects, have to come from somewhere. They will not be generated solely internally within Australia. So we do have to be competitive. The government has already passed legislation that backs small business by reducing their tax rate from 30 per cent to 27.5 per cent, starting with businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million, on 1 July last year. In total, the legislative changes to date will support 3.2 million businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. It is these small businesses that employ 6.7 million hardworking Australians. This is hardly what those opposite refer to as the big end of town. There are 6.7 million Australians employed by small business, and small business is now employing more Australians because they are more competitive with a more competitive tax rate.

So let's just have a look at the facts. Again, forget the rhetoric about the politics of division and envy and everybody being worse off. Let's have a look at the impact of the policies that this government has implemented for small business, and what that has resulted in. Let's have a look at the facts. The fact is that we've now had 16 consecutive months of job growth, the longest period of job growth in our history: 16 consecutive months of job growth! Those opposite should be dancing in the streets because we have now created 971,500 new jobs—not old jobs; new jobs have been created, an increase of 8.5 per cent. Total employment is now at a record high because we are entering into free trade agreements so that we can export more and we can employ more. And we get more money for those projects so loved by the Greens, because that money has to come from somewhere.

What have we created through these policies of actually allowing business to do business here and overseas, and to be more competitive? On average, 1,100 new Australian jobs are being created every single day. So, again, what do we hear from those opposite? Not congratulations! Today 1,100 Australians have got jobs, most of them full-time jobs. Those opposite should be shouting from the rooftops that the majority of those jobs are for women, and increasing women's participation in the workforce. It is very clear that our economic policies are driving confidence and investment. Again, the keys to stronger wage growth are policies that both grow the economy and strengthen our labour market by making our companies more competitive. Signing up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to additional significant jobs growth in Australia. We've seen it with the free trade agreements that have already been signed by this government—an additional 1,100 new jobs every day and 16 consecutive months of jobs growth—and yet not a word from those opposite.

We live on an island, but we do not generate the wealth here. We have to trade with other nations. We have to make sure that our companies, big and small, are competitive and have access to overseas markets so that we can create jobs. At the moment we're creating over 1,100 jobs a day. Measures like the TPP, and this tax cut now, will make sure that companies can employ more, so, hopefully, we'll get 1,200 or 1,300 new jobs a day as a result of these increasing measures.

I want to have a look at what our competitors overseas are doing. In recent years, a large number of our international competitors—companies that reside in Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Japan and France—have all reduced their company taxes. Why? Because they know they need to be competitive in the international market to stimulate jobs, businesses and income to pay for domestic services. In December last year, the United States slashed business tax from 35 per cent to 21 per cent—a measure that is clearly and demonstrably yielding results in the United States in terms of jobs growth. If Australia's rate was to remain at 30 per cent, Australia would then have one of the highest company taxation rates in the OECD, making it all that much harder for Australian companies to compete in fiercely competitive global markets. Having the free trade agreements is very important, but we also have to make it competitive in terms of tax rates so that our companies can compete, win business, sell goods and services, employ more Australians and pay higher wages.

Those opposite, who have traditionally supported meaningful and bipartisan tax reform, have abandoned all economic reason for the philosophical beliefs that somehow continuing to have one of the highest corporation tax rates in the world and in the OECD will magically make us a more prosperous nation and pay for all of the services that the Greens were saying would fix the problem. Well, they won't. We need lower company tax rates to increase our economy to pay for those very services. The World economic outlook released last year by the IMF warned that the US corporations tax cut plan will cut Australia's GDP by one per cent. That cut means fewer jobs and also lower wages. This is the IMF themselves saying that the US corporation tax cut will cut Australia's GDP by one per cent and threaten the sustainability of Australia's tax system unless Australia responds. This is consistent with Australian Treasury analysis. It is also consistent with the analysis of any student who studied year 7 or year 8 economics. That is the way the international economy works.

We, as a nation, must recognise that the international tax scene has changed and that we are not immune from it. The case for an Australian response is overwhelming. The government's enterprise tax plan is a sound and sensible response to changing global economic circumstances. Treasury, themselves, have said that the adverse impacts on Australia of US tax reform could, in effect, be offset by the implementation of the government's enterprise tax plan. Australians benefit from our openness in investment, which allows us to build on our resources, employ more hardworking Australians and trade our goods and services on a global market. But I again remind those in this chamber: as the mobility of global capital increases, Australia's high corporate tax rate can and will deter this investment. Why would large global companies come to Australia if we are not competitive in terms of our taxation?

Ultimately, this again will lead to lower wages and less money for infrastructure and social investment spending.

Let's have a look at the hypocrisy of those opposite. I know that many of those opposite did year 7 and year 8 economics. In fact, for many years those opposite were supportive of lower company tax rates, because they know the implications for our economy if we don't keep up with those we trade and engage with. Let's look at what former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in the other place:

If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, you are against jobs.

So it is not just those of us on this side saying that. This is the Labor Party acknowledging basic economics.

A government senator: The ALP.

The ALP—Prime Minister Gillard. What did Mr Shorten—who has a long history of backflipping on probably every important national issue—say on this very issue not so long ago? He said exactly the same thing as Julia Gillard did. He said:

The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest.

…   …   …

Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.

I'll say that again: Bill Shorten himself said that cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road. He said:

This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over the past 30 years.

I said at the beginning of my contribution that I believe this is one of the most important—if not the most important—pieces of legislation for our economic future in this country. Given that Bill Shorten not so long ago clearly understood the importance for our economy and for jobs of cutting tax rates here, he is doing little more than sabotaging this country's economic future. It is very consistent with his pre-budget and pre-election positioning on his messaging. And, sadly for this country, it is a message of division and envy, not one of recognising that this government has created almost a million new jobs—16 months of unbroken growth in jobs.

All I can say is: shame on the Labor Party for doing this on this issue, because we need to compete globally, we need to keep foreign investment coming in and we need new business opportunities. And as Bill Shorten said—in fact, I'll remind you of what Julia Gillard said, because it is very, very wise:

If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, you are against jobs.

We know, as those opposite actually know as well, that a more competitive business tax environment will encourage higher levels of investment in Australia for both small businesses and large businesses. We've seen the effect that the company tax rate for smaller businesses has had on their growth and their employment rates.

So, despite the fact that Labor very clearly understand that lower taxes are unequivocally good for our economy and jobs, what is their approach? Labor oppose the enterprise tax plan and a reduction in company tax rates. Labor actually have said that they want higher taxes, reduced investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. Shame on them! Bill Shorten is reported to have told business leaders to expect nothing from a Shorten Labor government. They might demonise big business, as they keep describing it—sneering at it—but it is small and big businesses that employ Australians. Governments do not generate money, and they do not generate jobs; the private sector does. Bill Shorten and Labor have such little respect for small business that they refuse to tell them about their secret plan to reverse the already legislated tax cuts for small to medium-sized businesses. These are the millions of mum-and-dad businesses across this country, people who work their guts out to set up their businesses, to keep their businesses going and to employ fellow Australians.

As we've heard from these quotes and quotes from some of my colleagues who've talked on this already, Labor know that company tax will boost jobs, will lift wages and will lift investment, because they used to support these very policies, as we've heard. In shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen's own words:

… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.

That is the shadow Treasurer—again, like so many others, and Bill Shorten. They say one thing—clearly having the ability to pass year 7 and year 8 economics—but then when they want to position themselves pre-budget and pre-election with their policies of division and envy, they will jettison the economic future of this country.

Canadian tax expert Jack Mintz has pointed out that 'it is a myth that company taxes are paid by the rich and the powerful'. Mintz says repeated studies show that at least two-thirds of company tax is shifted onto labour through higher consumption prices, wage cuts and also lay-offs of staff. We know this is true, because we have seen it here in Australia, and we know the converse is true, because we have seen now with small-business tax cuts and other support for small business that they are growing and they are employing more Australians at record rates.

In a similar vein, our own Treasury has pointed out that while company tax is paid by companies the burden is passed on to shareholders, consumers and employees. The Tax Foundation in the United States found that for every $1 rise in state and local corporate tax collections real wages had fallen by $2.50 five years later. Unsurprisingly, they also found the reverse is true. Wages have actually risen in the United States by $2.50 for every $1 reduction in state and local corporation taxes. The simple and undeniable fact is that higher corporate taxes end up hurting workers the most. The longer term benefits of a lower corporate tax rate accrue to workers and households through permanently higher after-tax real wages and consumption.

In the Financial Review, Richard Holden observed:

… a recent empirical study by three German economists, published in the flagship American Economic Review, contains an ingenious way to get at the causal effect of company tax rates on wages. They utilise the fact that in Germany the company tax rate is determined in part by the federal government and in part by local government. This gave rise to a staggering 17,999 tax changes in 10,001 municipalities …

This was over a 10-year period. At the end of this analysis they found that, on average, workers bear 51 per cent of the total company tax burden. Through very detailed analysis they clearly showed what they had found in America: that the higher the company tax, the greater the burden on workers than anybody else. They also found that higher company taxes reduce wages for the low-skilled, for women and for younger workers disproportionately.

The Turnbull government wants to give all hardworking Australians the opportunity to earn more and to be rewarded for their efforts. The enterprise tax plan is a critical step in our economic transition. As we look to encourage private investment across the economy, to generate broader based economic growth, this bill, as I said at the beginning, is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this chamber. No matter the fact that the Greens clearly have failed in their year 7 and year 8 economics, obviously thinking that national wealth is found at the bottom of the garden, through the sprinkling of fairy dust, we have to go out and businesses have to earn money. This has been demonstrated to work for small businesses in this country, just as it will work for larger businesses in this country.

I will conclude by saying: shame on those opposite. Every single one of you who stood up and spoke against this bill knows that this is important for this nation. You are on the record. Your shadow Treasurer and your leader are repeatedly on the record saying that lower company tax is critically important to jobs growth and to the future prosperity of our nation. It is not too late. I commend those on the crossbench who have taken this issue seriously and who do understand the importance of this for our future. It's not too late for Labor to change their minds and do the right thing, but I'm certain they won't.

Debate interrupted.

I have three notices. Pursuant to a notice given on 21 March 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 to 13 standing in my name for 25 June 2018, proposing the disallowance of 13 instruments as listed on today's Notice Paper at pages 28 to 31.

Pursuant to a notice given on 21 March 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 10 May 2018, proposing the disallowance of the Marriage Regulations 2017.

Finally, pursuant to a notice given on 21 March 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in my name for 28 March 2018, proposing the disallowance of the Torres Strait Regional Authority Election Rules 2017.

I present the third report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Report no. 3 of 2018

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 7.15 PM.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018 and National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 May 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 May 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) Levy Collection Bill 2018

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018

Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018

(David Bushby)

Chair

22 March 2018

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018

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

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date: Monday 7 May 2018

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

September 2017.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: impact on income support recipients

Possible submissions or evidence from: Australian Human Rights Commission, ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Australian Medical Association, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Cohealth, Australian Injecting and Illicit Users League

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 9 May 2018

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Birmingham, I move:

That—

(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business except for order of the day no. 12 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018), be considered from 12.45 pm today; and

(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.

Non-controversial government business—

No. 7 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018

No. 8 Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018

No. 9 Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018

No. 10 Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018

No. 11 Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017

No. 13 Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017

No. 14 Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Marshall from Monday, 26 March to Wednesday, 28 March, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Birmingham, I move:

That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:

(a) general business notice of motion no. 761 standing in the name of Senator Hanson relating to a national asbestos management and disposal plan; and

(b) orders of the day relating to documents.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now move to the discovery of formal business.

On behalf of Senator Birmingham, I move:

That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 8 May 2018 be from midday to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 10 May 2018 be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:

(a) the routine of business from 8.30 pm on Tuesday, 8 May 2018 shall be:

(i) Budget statement and documents 2018-19, and

(ii) adjournment; and

(b) the routine of business from 8 pm on Thursday, 10 May 2018 shall be:

(i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and

(ii) adjournment.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 30 September 2018:

(a) the operation and effectiveness of the Franchise Code of Conduct, including the disclosure document and information statement, and the Oil Code of Conduct, in ensuring full disclosure to potential franchisees of all information necessary to make a fully-informed decision when assessing whether to enter a franchise agreement, including information on:

(i) likely financial performance of a franchise and worse-case scenarios,

(ii) the contractual rights and obligations of all parties, including termination rights and geographical exclusivity,

(iii) the leasing arrangements and any limitations of the franchisee's ability to enforce tenants' rights, and

(iv) the expected running costs, including cost of goods required to be purchased through prescribed suppliers;

(b) the effectiveness of dispute resolution under the Franchising Code of Conduct and the Oil Code of Conduct;

(c) the impact of the Australian consumer law unfair contract provisions on new, renewed and terminated franchise agreements entered into since 12 November 2016, including whether changes to standard franchise agreements have resulted;

(d) whether the provisions of other mandatory industry codes of conduct, such as the Oil Code, contain advantages or disadvantages relevant to franchising relationships in comparison with terms of the Franchising Code of Conduct;

(e) the adequacy and operation of termination provisions in the Franchising Code of Conduct and the Oil Code of Conduct;

(f) the imposition of restraints of trade on former franchisees following the termination of a franchise agreement;

(g) the enforcement of breaches of the Franchising Code of Conduct and the Oil Code of Conduct and other applicable laws, such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and franchisors; and

(h) any related matter.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 9.30 am on 28 March 2018, documents related to Regional Forest Agreements as considered by, or arising from, the Forestry Ministers Meetings held on 14 December 2016 in Melbourne, on 31 March 2017 in Sydney, and on 30 August 2017 in Launceston, and any subsequent meetings, including agendas, minutes, appendices, attachments and documents resulting from actions arising in those meetings.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators Moore and Reynolds, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 25 March, the United Nations International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade offers us an opportunity to honour and remember those who suffered and died at the hands of the brutal slavery system,

(ii) the United Nations resolution 62/122 of December 2007 called for an ongoing outreach programme to mobilise educational institutions, civil society and communities across the world to ensure future generations will understand the causes and consequences and lessons of the Transatlantic slave trade and to communicate the dangers of racism and prejudice, and

(iii) the cross-party report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Hidden in Plain Sight: An inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia, tabled on 7 December 2017, provides clear evidence that slavery and trafficking still exists today, and notes the report's recommendations for action in legislation, supply chain monitoring and support for victims;

(b) notes and commends the Government on taking action against the trafficking of children into modem slavery in for-profit orphanages; and

(c) acknowledges the importance of a commitment to end the tyranny of modem slavery, learning the lessons of the horrors of the Transatlantic slave trade, and modern slavery's incompatibility with the individual rights and freedoms that underpin democracies.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senators Moore, Fierravanti-Wells, Di Natale and Singh, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, and marks the anniversary of German Nobel laureate, Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis,

(ii) tuberculosis is contagious and airborne, ranking as the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious agent,

(iii) in 2016, 1.7 million people died from tuberculosis worldwide and 10.4 million people became sick with the disease, with over 60% of cases occurring in countries in our region,

(iv) large gaps in tuberculosis detection and treatment remain, with 4.1 million cases of active tuberculosis that were not diagnosed and treated in 2016, including 600,000 children,

(v) in 2016, Papua New Guinea (PNG) had one of the highest rates of tuberculosis infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 35,000 total cases, including 2000 drug-resistant cases, not taking into consideration the large number of cases that go unreported in many regions; and

(vi) tuberculosis is:

(A) the leading cause of death among HIV positive people globally—HIV weakens the immune system and is lethal in combination with tuberculosis, each contributing to the other's progress,

(B) now linked to non-communicable diseases like diabetes, and

(C) considered a preventable and treatable disease, however many current treatment tools—drugs, diagnostics and vaccines—are outdated and ineffective;

(b) recognises:

(i) that the funding that Australia is providing to support the testing and treatment of tuberculosis in PNG, including the joint program with the World Bank, is already leading to an initiative to achieve universal testing for tuberculosis in Daru,

(ii) the commitment of up to $75 million over five years for Product Development Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative to accelerate access to new therapeutics and diagnostics for drug resistant tuberculosis, and malaria and mosquito vector control—an increase in funding to build on the successes of Australia's previous investments,

(iii) Australia's three year $220 million pledge to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (2017-2019)—a fund that has supported tuberculosis testing and treatment to 17.4 million people since 2002, including over 8.2 million people in the Indo-Pacific region,

(iv) that through our endorsement of the Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015, we made a bold commitment to end the tuberculosis epidemic by 2030, and

(v) the scheduling of the first United Nations High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis in September 2018, which will set out commitments to accelerate action towards ending tuberculosis as an epidemic and provide Australia with an opportunity to showcase the success of our investment in tuberculosis in our region; and

(c) calls on the Australian Government to attend the United Nations High-Level Meeting this year, and commit to increased Australian action and leadership on research and development, prevention, testing and treatment as part of the global effort to eradicate tuberculosis.

Question agreed to.

I, and also at the request of Senator Cameron, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) according to data from the 2016 Census, the number of homeless Australians has increased by 13.7% since 2011,

(ii) on Census night, more than 116,000 people were experiencing homelessness, and

(iii) the 'Everybody's Home' campaign has brought together 26 of Australia's leading non-government social services providers, community housing providers and homelessness advocates to call on governments to commit to a national action plan to end homelessness that addresses all the drivers of homelessness, including the lack of affordable housing, poverty and family violence; rapidly rehouses people who are homeless and helps them stay there; addresses the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the homeless service system; and includes a commitment to ending homelessness by 2030; and

(b) calls on the Government to provide the national leadership that is necessary, and to work with state and territory governments to develop and implement a national homelessness action plan.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In the 2017-18 budget, the government announced that it would introduce indexed and ongoing funding for homelessness for the first time, giving certainty to the homelessness sector. Over the next three years, the government is providing $375 million to the states and territories to deliver homelessness services programs through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. The legislation to achieve this is currently before the Senate. This legislation requires the states and territories to have a publicly available housing and homelessness plan.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Moore, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) United Nations World Water Day is 22 March, with the 2018 theme of 'Nature for Water' exploring how we can look to nature to overcome the water challenges of the 21st century,

(ii) currently, 2.1 billion people live without secure access to fresh drinkable water—agriculture accounts for 70% of global water usage, with industry consuming 20%, and domestic use of 10%; the proportion used for drinking water is less than 1%, and by 2050, the estimated growth in the human population of 2 billion will increase demand by 30%,

(iii) when we neglect our ecosystems, we make it harder to provide everyone with the water we need to survive and thrive; environmental damage, together with climate change, is driving global crises related to water;

(b) acknowledges that:

(i) Australia has a strong record with protecting and caring for our vital waterways and lakes, and

(ii) part of our pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG6 around Clean Water and Sanitation, is to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030; and

(c) calls on the Australian Government to ensure Australia's water is protected for the future, through preserving precious areas of native forests, restoring river systems and wetlands and renewed action on climate change.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes its concern that the Turnbull Government's National Energy Guarantee will undermine South Australia's renewable energy industry and job-rich projects; and

(b) rejects:

(i) any move from either the state or Federal Government to weaken South Australia's position as a leader in renewable energy, and

(ii) any attempts to dismantle South Australia's strong renewable energy target.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The National Energy Guarantee was designed by the energy market experts who make up the Energy Security Board. It has broad support across a diverse range of stakeholders. It will support the expansion of renewable energy while maintaining the reliability of the grid.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that 20 March 2018 marked the fifteenth anniversary of the commencement of the Iraq War;

(b) recalls the motion passed by the Senate on 20 March 2003, which stated that 'there should be no commitment of Australian troops to a war in Iraq outside the authority of the United Nations', and opposed 'the decision of the Australian Cabinet and the President of the United States of America to commit troops to an attack on Iraq';

(c) recognises that the decision of the Australian Government to commit Australian troops and provide support to the invasion of Iraq was made in the face of opposition of the majority of the Australian community, as well as the Senate;

(d) notes with deep sadness that the 2003 invasion of Iraq unleashed a catastrophe in every respect, and caused an enormous amount of additional suffering; and

(e) calls on all parties to support a long overdue inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq War.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Sending our service men and women into warlike operations is one of the most serious decisions a government can make. Australia's involvement in the Iraq War has already been thoroughly examined by parliamentary inquiries and is a matter of public record. A further inquiry is unnecessary. The Australian Defence Force operates under strict rules of engagement in accordance with domestic and international law. On the 15th anniversary of the decision to join the Iraq War, the coalition government commends the service of the men and women who have served our country with distinction and honour during this conflict.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor's view on the Iraq War is well known. In 2003, Labor opposed the commitment of troops to the conflict in Iraq without the endorsement of the UN, and it was the former Labor government that took the decision to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq in 2008. For these reasons, the opposition will support paragraphs (a) to (d) of this motion.

However, the opposition asks for the question to be divided so that we can vote differently on paragraph (e). The opposition does not support the call for yet another inquiry into Australia's involvement in the Iraq war. The circumstances surrounding the decision to commit troops to the Iraq war have been the subject of a number of parliamentary inquiries, particularly in the Senate. The specific use of the intelligence of weapons of mass destruction has also been the subject of extensive government and parliamentary reviews, including the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, and the 2004 Flood inquiry into the Australian intelligence agencies.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I know that Labor has the right to split this motion, but fundamentally—and I need to get this on the record—we completely disagree with the government that there has been a proper, independent inquiry into the Iraq war. The Chilcot inquiry was a proper, independent inquiry into the Iraq war in the UK, and its findings were damning. They were damning. We've never had anything like that in this country.

My reason for asking the Senate to consider taking the two together is that—and I respect the fact that the Labor Party did vote against the Iraq war, as did this Senate, may I say, and that is in the motion—we are still sending our proud men and women in uniform off to fight in the Middle East, in this ongoing mess, this debacle, that we are seeing unfolding before us. Until we actually learn from the Iraq war, unfortunately, Labor will continue to support our troop deployments and our force deployments in the Middle East.

The question is that clauses (a) to (d) of motion 755, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

The question is that clause (e) of motion 755 be agreed to.

I have received letters requesting changes in the memberships of committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs References Committee—

Appointed—Substitute members:

Senator Polley to replace Senator Keneally for the committee's inquiry into aged care assessment and accreditation

Senator O'Neill to replace Senator Watt for the committee's inquiry into mental health services in rural and remote Australia

Participating members: Senators Keneally and Watt

Economics Legislation Committee—

Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018 and a related bill

Economics References Committee—

Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker, South Australia

Question agreed to.

I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Tax cuts are usually popular, but many senators here oppose the tax cut we are discussing here today because it is a tax cut for companies. This is odd because company is not a dirty word. A company is just a gathering of humans for common cause or just for fun. Someone's company is a thing to be enjoyed. Other words for company include association, society, community, cooperative, kibbutz, union and collective. If only we reworded the tax cut we are debating today as a tax cut for collectives we might even get the support of our comrades in the Greens. For the Greens, a collective is good but a company is bad, even though they are both gatherings of people to achieve things that they couldn't do alone.

If anything, a company is better than a collective because a company is always thought of as a voluntary gathering of people, whereas a collective is sometimes used for a gathering achieved through duress and the use of force. A company consists of people. Any tax on a company is a tax on the people who own it, and the people who own Australian companies are overwhelmingly Australians. The great majority of Australians are part-owners of companies, either directly or through their superannuation fund. A company tax cut is a tax cut for the people of Australia.

Keeping a high company tax rate is not a smart way for low-income Australians to punish high-income Australians. We've got a progressive tax system that serves that dubious purpose. Given that we've already got a high top-income tax rate that punishes high-income Australians, keeping a high company tax rate just punishes low-income Australians. And keeping a high company tax rate does not punish foreigners. It just encourages them to keep their money at home or invest it elsewhere, rather than inject it into Australia. This means a shrinking of production in Australia, which hurts workers through fewer jobs and lower wages.

Given company tax cuts in the rest of the world, we are past the stage where a small-company tax cut under consideration here would boost jobs and wages. Now this small cut is necessary for us to save our current jobs and to stop our wages from dropping. The Liberal Democrats will of course support the small cut currently under consideration, but we must go further, such as by moving to the 20 per cent company tax rate that forms part of the Liberal Democrats' fully-funded, fully-costed policy platform—the costings for which are all published on the website of the Parliamentary Budget Office. Only with a competitive tax rate can we go beyond the current fear for our jobs and instead look forward to a better future: a future with more jobs and higher wages, and a future with more money in the pockets of the millions of citizens, both rich and poor, who have a stake in the companies of Australia.

Again, it's great to see some very reasonable contributions being made from the crossbench on such an important issue. I, too, am pleased to be able to make a contribution on the debate relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, something that, as a nation, we've been talking about for quite some time.

I will just pick up on a point that was made by Senator Reynolds in her contribution—just before we broke to deal with the business of the Senate and other items—about that previous sense of bipartisanship we've had around tax reform and tax policy in this country and which has evaporated. Later on I will come to claims and points that have been made by the opposition leader, by former Prime Minister Gillard and by other members of the ALP in this debate previously, because I think it's important to point out how strong and strident supporters they were of the tax reforms we are now talking about. It does beg the question: why the change? What has motivated this change in policy? I think the answer starts with the letter 'P', and that it's all about politics.

On the coalition's part, though, this bill and the previous reforms that have passed through this place are all about giving people opportunities, as previous speakers in this debate have said. We are known as the 'lucky country', the land of opportunity, and you only have to speak to people who come from countries where there aren't opportunities to understand exactly why they say that. The reforms contained in this bill and, indeed, the reforms that have passed so far, go precisely to creating an environment where those opportunities are given to people. It creates that situation where people are enticed to take a risk, to invest, to create a business, to create jobs and to grow the economy—and, at the end of all that, reap the reward for the effort they put in. That is not a bad thing. That is not a dirty thing. In many cases, particularly in our regional communities, you see those benefits flowing on to others, in the form of employees, which in turn results in money being spent in the local community and economy.

It is my view, and the view of the coalition, that people are fundamentally better off having the money they work hard for in their pockets rather than having it taken out of their pockets and given to the government to do with as they please. Somehow the government thinks it knows best what to do with other people's money. I think we have comprehensively, over many generations, proven to the Australian public that the government doesn't always get it right when it comes to tax expenditure. What we do need to do is rein in expenses rather than taxing people more.

There is a bizarre notion being peddled by those opposite that affording a more competitive tax regime and better tax conditions to that part of the economy that creates jobs—that is, the private sector—is somehow wrong. It is bizarre, it is wrong, it doesn't stack up. I don't understand the opposition's hollow claim that it is somehow favouring the big end of town. The current Leader of the Opposition didn't seem to have a problem with it before. Indeed, he made reference to tax reform applying to all types of businesses, big and small, so that we do have a level and competitive playing field.

As I said before, this side of the chamber—the government, the coalition—believes it would be better if this money were circulating in the economy and being spent by the people who earn it, who create it, who take the risk to generate the funds that they are going to be spending, to invest further, to expand the business that they may run, to create more job opportunities and to enable others to reap the benefits of their hard work. That's our view. But as was pointed out a couple of days ago by Senator Cormann, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Labor point of view is that the starting point is that any dollar earned by an Australian should go to the government; and you can see that point of view when the opposition refer to providing businesses with a more competitive tax regime as a cost, as a spend. But it's not the government's money; it is still in the pockets of those who are yet to pay the tax. It doesn't belong to this place; it belongs to those people who work hard and earn it. And we think that they know best what to do with their money. So that's what it's all about.

I do wonder, though, whether this is about finding money to prop up large, costly, big-spending programs by the Labor Party should they happen to be successful at the next election. In a previous iteration of a Labor government, we saw costly programs such as pink batts and school halls. So hanging onto the money that Australians earn through their own efforts would enable the opposition to pay for some of these things that they will no doubt promise in the lead-up to the next election. But none of those increases in the size of the bureaucracy here in Canberra, none of those big-spending programs within government, will do much to stimulate the economy. They won't create jobs in regional communities. They won't enhance the opportunities for people to make a go of things themselves. We should be fostering a sense of self-worth and self-determination—that you can have a go and you will reap the rewards for your hard work. What Labor will propose to do, by hanging onto this cash that Australians have earned and worked hard for, is spend it themselves in a way they see fit—predominantly here in Canberra, I suspect, and probably other capital cities around the nation, but certainly not in regional communities.

The other point to make on that, of course, is that when we have more people out there working in private entities right across the country, when we have businesses thriving, growing and choosing to do business here rather than somewhere else, more people are paying tax and more entities are paying tax and we have more revenue for government. I point that out to those opposite in probably some vain hope that they will see sense in the bills before the Senate. As my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells said in her contribution earlier today, if those who are opposed to this legislation are successful in blocking it then they will continue to apply the handbrake to the economy. We will not be able to pick up to full steam and do what we need to, to ensure that for the generations to come we have done all we can to ensure that our country can pay for the services it needs and to make sure that young Australians—generations that are yet to enter the workforce—are able to find employment, wherever they live, particularly, as I always say in this place, in regional communities, not just in our capital cities.

That is why this legislation is so critically important. It is about facilitating, right across Australia, an environment in which we will keep the economy growing, we will keep wages growing and, most importantly, we will keep creating jobs. Every business that benefits from this will want to do better. They will want to take advantage of the circumstances that will apply with regard to tax rates in this country, and they will want to invest more. That means they will open new factories, they will open new distribution centres and they will open new shops, and that means there will be more people employed, and each of those people spend money in the community and contribute to the economy through the payment of taxes.

We've come to learn over recent decades that the business world is very much a global place. It's not something that we have a firm border around in this country. It's not the case that decisions made in other trading partner nations—Japan, India, China and the US—have no impact on business conditions in this nation. What happens over there does have an impact right here, and that is as a result of businesses becoming far more global, being more mobile and being able to pick up their operations very quickly and move them from one place to the next. Indeed, being global operations, as they expand they will be looking to see what the conditions in various countries across the world are like in order to make decisions about how best to invest their money. It comes down to a choice for them, as it does for all of us. All of us make choices on a daily basis about how we spend our money: whether buying a house in that suburb is better than buying a house in the other suburb, or whether buying the generic brand of toothpaste at the supermarket as opposed to the name brand is the best way to go. These are choices that are made on a very micro scale. But also as companies want to make the decisions that are right for them they will consider all factors, and the tax rate here relative to the tax rates in other countries will be chief amongst them.

So I think it is good for us to, in this debate—and I'm sure others have as well—consider the tax rates that apply in other nations and to consider where we sit as a country with reference to international tax rates. Over the past few years we have seen quite a number of countries with similar economies and regimes to our own making efforts. And these companies are our competitors, as I said. It is a global market in which we are seeking to bring business here rather than allowing it to go offshore.

We talk about that all the time in this place, so again I highlight the contradiction in the argument of the opposition. What we are doing by not endorsing this legislation is creating an environment in which people are forced offshore, as are the jobs that are attached to those businesses. But countries like Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, New Zealand—our neighbours across the Tasman—Norway, Israel, Japan and France have all reduced their company tax rates. They are all countries that are seeking to grow whatever markets and industries they have within their nation. Some of them are agricultural exporters, some of them are manufacturers, some of them are tech providers and others are service economies. Each of them, in some way, competes with us. When they take trade delegations to other countries, when they attend trade shows and when they have diplomatic meetings, each of them will be putting in the hardcore pitch to say, 'Our place is the best to do business because of these reasons.' One of the reasons they will highlight is the tax regime as it applies to the country they represent.

Only last year a significant economy—that is, the United States' economy—emerged as a serious competitor. They made the choice to slash their tax rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. We are already seeing the benefits flowing right across that nation as a result of the decision by the government to cut the corporate tax rate. I remember watching—I think it may have even been on SBS—a journalistic piece about the benefits flowing to every corner of that nation, including a former down-and-out region in the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia, which was formerly a coalmining region of the United States. Because of Donald Trump, his government and the decision they made to reduce the tax rate to a far more competitive rate—a rate that poses a threat to this nation in terms of our business growth and attracting business from overseas—things picked up over there. The piece I saw on SBS talked about coalminers who were second-generation, or sometimes third-generation, unemployed people. Because the economy had picked up and there was increased manufacturing going on—more house building and more production of concrete and cement products—there was an increased demand for energy. So coalminers in this formerly down-and-out and forgotten part of the United States finally had jobs, all because of Donald Trump and his government's decision to reduce the tax rates. That one example should be enough for those who claim to represent regional communities to support this legislation.

There's a lot of commentary with regard to this from right around the world. The International Monetary Fund's World economic outlook released last year warned that the reduced tax rate that applies now in the United States will cut Australia's GDP by one per cent and threaten the sustainability of the Australian tax system unless Australia responds. That was backed up by our very own Treasury analysis here in Australia. And I suppose that's the point. It goes to this very simple point: we need to compete. We need to be able to say to those people who are making that decision, 'Come here, because this is a better tax rate than you will get somewhere else.' Of course, there are other factors, but these are businesses we are talking about; they are in the business of improving their investments, growing them and wanting to make more money. I don't think that's a bad thing, because one of the results of that, as I pointed out in that example about the United States, is that jobs are created because demand has increased. As I said, Treasury here has indicated that the adverse impacts on Australia of US tax reform could, in effect, be offset by the implementation of the government's enterprise tax plan—the very bill we have been debating. It is pleasing to note that Treasury has come out and said exactly that.

Treasury modelling released at the time of the 2016-17 budget estimated our tax cut would increase the size of our economy by around one per cent. That would be a permanent boost to economic growth, jobs and wages. There you see a direct rebutting of the claims made by the opposition in relation to why they, for some bizarre reason, want to oppose this legislation that will actually create jobs. The reality is that as a nation, and as a competitor globally, we have fallen behind other jurisdictions and we need to ensure that we don't fall further behind, because every time we fall behind, companies that are making a choice about whether to invest here or to invest somewhere else are going to be less likely to make a decision to invest in the Australian economy, to create jobs here.

It is a domestic problem as well if you don't have a local environment in which businesses have incentive, and the capacity, too, because if they are paying higher rates of tax, there's less money in their pockets to invest here in an increased operation—in establishing a new factory and investing in new plant and equipment, in putting on further lines of production, and in opening new shopfronts. All of these things create jobs, so it matters domestically. It's not just about attracting businesses who are making a choice between, say, investing in the United States or Australia, or France or Australia or any other country and our own. It's about ensuring that those countries that are here, that do have the capacity to grow, have that opportunity.

It's also very much about fostering innovation. When we have a prohibitive tax rate we end up hampering innovation. Australia, and my home state of Tasmania, are home to some great leading innovators. The point has been made to me that the tax rate we currently face in this country is something that makes businesses think that they might either not do it altogether or go somewhere else to invest in their start-up. All of these things need to be taken into account. But it is very simple: it's about creating an environment where you have a desire and an incentive for people to invest more, because it does translate into more jobs and wages growth. And at the end of the day it translates into greater tax receipts, which means we can sustainably pay for the services we need in order to keep this country ticking over.

Just to reiterate some points made by my colleagues earlier. I started by highlighting a question I have in my mind, which is yet to be answered: why on earth are Labor now opposed to this piece of legislation, given they've previously been so strongly behind bipartisan approaches to tax reform? You have only to look at the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the tax laws in this country and the need to have a better tax rate. He said:

… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only (as the Greens propose) creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.

In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller - and the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth.

(Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill, but I am about to do a very brave act in that I'm doing it directly from an iPad. So if the South Australian power situation changes in any way, shape or form, I maybe in big trouble! This bill complements stage 1 of the government's plan to reduce the company tax for small to medium companies. It's worth going through the enterprise tax plan part 2 detail. It's very important that we understand the detail, because so many of the comments that have been made so far have ignored the detail of the bill and have equated things that cannot be equated. As we transition from the mining investment boom it is vital that we give businesses every opportunity to invest, to innovate, to grow and to employ more Australians. This government wants to give all hardworking Australians the opportunity to earn more and be rewarded for their efforts.

This tax plan is a critical step in our economic transition as we look to encourage private investment across the economy to generate broader based economic growth. The legislation currently in parliament is designed to deliver the remainder of the government's plan to cut company tax. It follows the passage of legislation in May 2017 to cut company tax for companies with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million. This is a good start. It helps around 3.2 million businesses employing over 6.5 million workers. But we can't stop there. We must continue this process. While the cutting of company tax for companies at $50 million is a really good start, Australia must continue with the second stage. That's what we're talking about here—the second stage of this reform to make the nation's company tax rate internationally competitive. If we fail to do so, we will be effectively applying a handbrake on the growth of some of our most innovative businesses. It would be a truly perverse outcome if the reward for a firm growing and going over the $50 million level were for it to suffer a tax penalty—that's just bizarre. That's why passage of the full enterprise tax plan is absolutely necessary.

Under the plan, the turnover threshold to qualify for a lower tax rate will be progressively raised to cover all companies by 2024-25, before the company tax rate is reduced to 25 per cent for all companies by 2026-27. This is not something which sits by itself. It's not something that you can look at and criticise on a single basis. It fits into the government's economic plan. The government has delivered substantial reforms designed to put more money into people's pockets in a number of different ways; for example, in energy, in school funding, in child care, in medicines and in the small-business tax cuts that we've spoken about, which have been successful or are about to be successful. By doing this, the government is ensuring that you have more money in your pocket and your cost of living is lower.

As we have said, these corporate tax cuts exist in the context of a broad economic plan. They're just one part of the plan. Certainly, when the budget can afford it, we want to provide income tax relief to individuals and families, and that's the complementary side of what we're talking about today. The government are committed to keeping taxes as low as they possibly can be, because we have to deliver, and we will continue to deliver, activities that reduce the burden on families and ensure that Australians retain more of the money they earn. We've seen chief executives such as Alan Joyce and Andrew Mackenzie call on the Senate to pass the business tax cuts. They understand that pledging a lower tax rate will lead to more jobs and higher wages. These are some of the biggest employers in Australia.

Reducing the corporate tax rate would make a strong contribution to Australia's economic growth, which is vital for generating the next wave of productivity in Australia. The contrast with Labor is clear. Labor stand for higher taxes in every way that they possibly can. Their plan is to slug Australians with something like $150 billion to $200 billion in new taxes, including taxes on housing, electricity, income, small business and investment. We've even heard, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to have declared war on businesses, say that businesses should expect nothing from a Shorten Labor government. Eighty-six per cent of Australians are employed by private businesses, so the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, has declared war on the businesses that employ the overwhelming majority of Australians, and that means he's declared war on jobs. It's very sad that we no longer have a degree of bipartisanship on tax, something which I suspect has been sacrificed on the altar of politics and not on the logic of economics. We, as a government, have an obligation to carry this country from the prosperity of the mining boom days through the prosperity which is being maintained today into Australia's future, and Australia's future must be a prosperous future. The most important thing that any government can do is create the conditions for an economy that produces prosperity for each and every one of its citizens.

I've spent a good deal of my life in countries where economies don't work. The biggest problem that exists in these countries is quite often one of corruption. Corruption is quite often caused by the fact that such countries do not have an effective tax system. People see corruption in many of these countries as a form of taxation that just does not go through the government.

We cannot afford to take ourselves back in any way, shape or form to a situation where there is not enough finance being raised for the government to do the good things that government can do. The first start of this tax reduction plan was a good start. On my travels, I've met small-business owners and operators who anticipate benefitting from these tax cuts and who can now spend more on what they do, which benefits the entire community, and they can employ more people—as they are in fact doing. One of these operators was anticipating growing his company, over the next couple of years, over the current $50 million aggregated limit. If Labor and the Greens had their way, he would then be penalised. This is a bizarre consequence of how you would reward people for innovation, hard work and being successful.

The point of this bill is to lower tax on all companies progressively, as I described previously. This is a good plan and it is a good bill by itself. But, given the international situation of nations across the world reducing corporate tax, it goes away from just being a good thing to do to being absolutely essential. We know that one of the most important aspects of prosperity is the creation of jobs through trade deals, which this government is proud of and has engineered over a long period of time. This tax plan is a good plan, while Labor and the Greens have offered us no plan at all but to leave taxes high, or to increase taxes so that they can spend more.

Trickle-down economics has worked. Regardless of where it comes from, it has happened over the past and it has made this an extraordinarily prosperous country. This is not a neoliberal economics concept. It's not something which has been made up by anyone. It is basic Economics 101, and we see it in this nation in the jobs that have been created in this country.

The Greens have described their total and absolute opposition to economic policy in such unsophisticated terms as 'crappy'. They say that we are giving away $65 billion to the big end of town. They've put their opposition to the bill in terms of corporate versus the battlers; that there is no connection between company tax and wages; that we favour fat cats or we favour nurses or teachers—I'm surprised that police somehow didn't get into this strange combination. This is appalling class warfare. It's a denial of the benefits that the economy has conferred on this nation for many, many years. Money, prosperity and happiness apparently come from the fairies at the end of the garden, as a previous speaker has said on a number of occasions.

The concept has been put to this chamber that we should be spending a similar amount of money on transport. That's fantastic. We would certainly be able to move everyone everywhere, except there would be no jobs for anyone—but, of course, we could always get to the Greens' rallies on time. Someone's got to create the wealth, and wealth is created by successful companies and individuals, with the workers able to be prosperous as a result.

What is not the way to create wealth for all in our society is by becoming internationally uncompetitive. What is not the way to create wealth is to attack entrepreneurs and employers in some form of class warfare. What is not the way to create wealth is by denying jobs to workers who then spend. Class warfare seems to lead directly to the kind of undergraduate socialism that we so often see mentioned in certain areas. What direction should we be going in? We should be aiming for a prosperous nation based on an effective economy which is internationally competitive.

Australia has always been dependent on overseas investment, ever since its colonial past. We have achieved extraordinary results—truly extraordinary results. We see the prosperity built on a nation which has something like the 12th-largest GDP in the world. For a country of 24 million people, what an extraordinary achievement this has been.

It being 12.45, pursuant to order, debate on this bill is now interrupted. Senator Molan, you will be in continuation when debate on this bill resumes.

I rise to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018. Our ADF personnel put their lives on hold in service to our country. They take risks, make sacrifices and commit their lives and wellbeing to the Defence Force. For some, their service may have a greater impact on them. In these circumstances, we have a duty of care to ensure that both they and their family receive the support they need to live full and productive lives.

Labor believes one suicide is too many, and is committed to supporting both our current serving ADF personnel and our veterans. It is for this reason that Labor supported the establishment of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel as a way to explore the issue facing our ex-service men and women. A number of issues were highlighted throughout the inquiry, including the impact of financial stresses, the adversarial and lengthy claim process and the lack of support for partners of veterans. Following the diligent work of senators, the report made 24 recommendations. Labor has offered our support to the government to ensure these vital recommendations are implemented in a timely manner.

This bill seeks to address two of these recommendations by establishing an interim incapacity payment for mental health and by increasing support for families. Greater support for families is an issue which Labor has been actively pursuing. We have highlighted the importance of supporting those who are supporting our current and ex-Defence personnel. It is for this reason that, if elected, we are committed to developing a family engagement and support strategy for Defence personnel and veterans. This strategy would provide a national blueprint to include engagement by DVA and Defence with military families. It would also ensure that best practice support for families of serving personnel and ex-ADF members was consistently available across the country. Schedule 1 will provide additional support for current and former members and their families, including deceased members, by providing additional childcare arrangements, counselling and household services and attendant care.

In addition, this bill introduces the veteran payment—an interim income support payment for those waiting for their mental health claims to be determined. The veteran payment will be a form of interim income support payment available between lodging a claim for a mental health injury and the claim being determined, to assist vulnerable people who may be in financial difficulty. It's anticipated that approximately 1,500 veterans and partners will benefit from this payment in the 2017-18 financial year. Labor strongly support measures which provide vulnerable veterans and their families with assistance and support, particularly during difficult times. For individuals struggling with mental health injuries financial security can play heavily on their mind. These payments will take some of the burden off the individual and their family while they receive the care and support they need to recover.

This bill will also create a new pilot mental health program, streamline additional assistance for individuals, automate qualifying service determinations and make a number of technical amendments. Labor is supportive of the amendments proposed in this legislation, in particular those which address recommendations from the Senate inquiry into suicide and veterans and ex-service personnel. Labor will continue to monitor the implementation of the other recommendations to ensure they are delivered in a timely manner and that the gaps highlighted through the Senate processes are addressed. Our current and ex-serving Defence personnel put their lives on hold in service of our country. They deserve our unwavering support now and into the future.

I want to talk about the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018, which is a non-controversial piece of legislation, and I want to cite one example of why we so badly need a veteran-centric approach to veterans' affairs in Australia, which is what this bill promises to deliver. I'm referring to the case of Jesse Bird, a decorated 32-year-old veteran of the war in Afghanistan who died by suicide in June last year. This is a very sad case, and one which reflects badly on the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I say that with regret because I know the majority of DVA officers are dedicated to the welfare of our veterans and do their best in often difficult circumstances. But this case, and others like it, show that there are systemic failures in the way the department works. They are not the fault of any one officer or any one minister or any one government. They are systemic and they need to the fixed, and I'm sure it is everyone's hope in this chamber that this bill will go some way towards fixing them.

After his return from Afghanistan, Jesse Bird suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. This is the most common mental health condition faced by veterans after service in the gruelling circumstances of modern warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. His PTSD led, in turn, to a depressive disorder and alcohol abuse. In August 2016, DVA accepted liability for Jesse Bird's PTSD and its consequences; then, perversely, the department refused his claim for permanent impairment status, which would have entitled him to financial support. The department did this knowing that he was a suicide risk and that he had no other source of financial support. A few weeks later he did indeed commit suicide. At that point, he had $5 to his name.

Following Jesse Bird's death, his parents, John and Karen Bird, appeared on ABC TV calling for reforms that would prevent other veterans being treated in the same way. In response, the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Dan Tehan, ordered an inquiry. In October, the inquiry reported its findings. It found that DVA had failed to comply with its own legislation in its handling of Jesse Bird's claim for permanent impairment status and also that DVA took far too long to process his claim. It found that DVA failed to follow up warnings that Jesse Bird was suicidal, that they did not arrange appropriate counselling for him and that they refused him interim financial support while his claim was being considered.

The report made 19 recommendations to prevent such tragedies occurring again. The most important of these were that interim financial support must be made available in such cases while claims are being determined, that veterans making compensation claims should have access to independent legal advocacy services, and that case management procedures should be overhauled so the veterans who are suicide risks can be quickly identified and supported with appropriate counselling. After these recommendations were released, Mr Tehan said:

After consulting with the Birds on the final recommendations, the Government is committed to addressing the recommendations made in the report and I will have the progress against each recommendation reviewed by an independent expert after 12 months.

This bill is in part a response to that inquiry. The bill establishes an interim income support payment for veterans waiting for mental health claims to be determined. The payments are subject to satisfying the income and assets tests and will require individuals to engage in vocational and psychosocial rehabilitation, including financial counselling.

In addition, partners of veterans may also be eligible for a payment. This new payment is in response to the inquiry into the suicide of Jesse Bird. It is a direct result of the advocacy of his parents and all of those who took the time to make submissions to the Senate inquiry. I want to acknowledge the persistent efforts of the Bird family to see that the circumstances which led to Jesse's death are not repeated. I hope they gain some comfort from the success that they have gained through the provisions of this bill.

I thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill. The purpose of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018 is to implement several new initiatives to deliver a range of services to the veterans community and their families to address concerns raised in the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee report The constant battle: suicide by veterans.

Schedule 1 of the bill introduces a range of measures in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, aimed at providing additional family support to veterans and their families. The government is committed to supporting the partners and the families of our veterans. Families make a significant contribution to the health and wellbeing of Australian Defence Force members throughout their careers, through the transition process and when they become civilians also. The role of family can be particularly important in the treatment and recovery of ill or injured individuals throughout their lives.

Building on the funding provided in the 2017-18 budget, an additional $7.1 million will be provided over four years to extend the support available to families of veterans. This additional support will include greater access to child care, additional home care and counselling, which will help families maintain their connections to their community and employment. The family support amendments will provide additional and practical services designed to improve veterans' health and wellbeing and to assist families of veterans to support them. The services will increase childcare assistance and extend brief intervention counselling for up to five years post discharge for veterans with current rehabilitation plans and their partners and immediate family. It will provide child care, home-care assistance and counselling to the partners and families of a veteran who has served in a recent conflict and who has died, either as a result of the recent conflict or by suicide, for a period of two years from the death of that veteran.

Schedule 2 will create a new veteran payment that will benefit approximately 830 veterans and 690 partners—a total of 1,520 people in the 2018-19 financial year. The veteran payment is a new income support payment that will provide vulnerable veterans with interim financial support until their claim for a liability for a mental health condition is determined. A key focus of the veteran payment is vocational and psychosocial rehabilitation, which includes financial counselling and budgeting. Partners of veterans may also be eligible for the veteran payment, and veterans with dependent children will be entitled to the maximum rate of family tax benefit part A without being subject to the family tax benefit means test while they receive the veteran payment.

Schedule 3 will enable selected white-card holders to participate in the new Coordinated Veterans' Care Program mental health pilot: $3.6 million has been allocated to this pilot, which is focused on veterans with mild to moderate anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder and associated physical health problems, such as musculoskeletal pain. The pilot will be embedded in the existing Coordinated Veterans' Care Program, which uses a team based model of care, led by a general practitioner and supported by a practice nurse.

The veterans participating will be able to access an additional coach application on a smartphone or smart device. The digital application is based upon cognitive behavioural therapy principles. Clinical oversight for the pilot will be provided by a health call-monitoring facility, staffed by registered nurses and supervised by a mental health nurse.

Schedule 4 will amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to align it with the changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, relating to catastrophic injuries or disease. It will ensure that veterans with a catastrophic injury or disease will receive at least the same entitlements as civilian employees. These amendments will clarify the legislative basis for payments for household and attendant care services for veterans with a catastrophic injury or disease.

Schedule 5 will simplify the determination of qualifying service by automating the process and removing the requirement for a veteran to make application for a determination. This measure is a key part of the VCR program, which aims to put veterans and their needs at the forefront of the delivery of services by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Other measures in this bill will extend gold card eligibility to ADF members who served in Japan at the end of World War II before the establishment of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, and make a number of minor and technical amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as it relates to the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council.

Each of the measures in this bill will mean better outcomes and improved services for veterans and their families. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018. This bill implements a number of sensible amendments to improve the integrity and operation of the consolidation regime. The bill implements recommendations made by the Board of Taxation in 2012 and 2013 and reflects consultation carried out by Treasury and by the Board of Taxation.

In Australian taxation law, the consolidation regime applies primarily to a wholly owned group of Australian resident entities that chooses to form a consolidated group for income tax purposes. A consolidated group generally consists of an Australian resident head company and all of its wholly owned resident subsidiaries. Specific rules also allow certain resident wholly owned subsidiaries of a foreign holding company to consolidate by forming a multiple-entry consolidated group.

Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It does so to improve the integrity and the operation of the consolidation regime by implementing the following measures. These measures, except for the deferred tax liabilities measure and the securitised asset measure, were originally announced by the former Labor government in the budget of 2013-14. The application of the securitised asset measure to ADIs and financial entities was announced by the government in the 2014-15 budget. The deductible liabilities, deferred tax liabilities and extension of securitised assets measures were announced in the 2016-17 budget, and these measures had been agreed to in principle by the former Labor government.

Historically, the consolidation regime was introduced in 2002. The Board of Taxation commenced a post-implementation review of certain aspects of the consolidation regime in 2009. As a result of its review, the board presented two reports in 2012 and 2013. This bill implements recommendations made by the Board of Taxation in these reports to improve the integrity and operation of the consolidation regime. It also implements other changes which are consistent with the board's recommendations. Treasury conducted two rounds of public consultations and returned to the Board of Taxation when some stakeholders raised issues that had not been raised with the Board of Taxation. I'm pleased to say that no stakeholders have raised substantive concerns with the final legislation.

The various measures and their start dates are as follows. The first is the deductible liabilities measure, from 1 July 2018, which will remove a double benefit that can arise in respect of certain liabilities held by an entity that joins a consolidated group. The second is the introduction of the deferred tax liabilities measure of 15 February 2018, which will simplify the operation of the entry and exit tax cost-setting rules by ensuring that deferred tax liabilities are disregarded. The third is the securitised assets measure of 13 May 2014, which will remove anomalies that arise when an entity joins or leaves a consolidated group where the entity has securitised an asset. The fourth is the churning measure of 14 May 2013, which will switch off the entry tax cost-setting rules for a joining entity where a capital gain or capital loss made by a foreign resident owner when it ceases to hold membership interests in the adjoining entity is disregarded in certain circumstances. The fifth is the taxation of financial arrangements measure of 1 July 2010, which will clarify the operation of the TOFA provisions when an intragroup asset or liability that is or is part of a division 230 financial arrangement emerges from a consolidated group because a subsidiary member leaves the group. And sixth is the value-shifting measure of 14 May 2013, which will remove anomalies that arise when an entity leaves a consolidated group holding an asset that corresponds to a liability owed to it by the old group because the value of the asset taken into account for tax cost-setting purposes is not always appropriate.

In some instances transitional rules ensure that taxpayers who've entered into arrangements prior to commencement are not disadvantaged, are not able to obtain windfall gains or do not have to change a position they have taken under the current law. The current changes that are proposed in this legislation are technical in nature. They remove unintended benefits of the consolidation regime and are the result of rigorous consultations and work by the Board of Taxation on matters engaged with and by previous Labor governments. Labor is happy to support this bill, which continues the integrity work on the consolidation regime that began under the previous Labor government.

I thank senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Can I just clarify the date of the deductible liabilities measure. It's from 1 July 2016?

Yes.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018. Last year the parliament passed the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Act, with the support of Labor. The act included an amendment that made it easier for young people from regional and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. Recipients of youth allowance are paid at either a dependent or an independent rate. The rate of youth allowance received by someone who is assessed as dependent is affected by their parents' income, whereas the rate for a recipient who is assessed as independent is not.

There are a number of ways in which an applicant can qualify as independent for the purposes of youth allowance, including when they have supported themselves through paid work over an 18-month period since finishing secondary school. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Act 2017 reduced the existing 18-month period to 14 months for students from regional and remote Australia. As a result of that change, from 1 January 2018 full-time students from regional or remote areas who need to move from their parental home to study in another place can qualify as independent if, since leaving secondary school, they have met one of these criteria: firstly, if over a 14-month period they have earned 75 per cent or more of wage level A of the national training wage schedule included in a modern award—which in the 2017-18 financial year was equal to $24,836; secondly, if for at least two years they have worked at least 15 hours each week. Their parents must also have earned less than $150,000 in the previous tax year.

It was intended that the new 14-month period be applied to existing and new Youth Allowance applicants; however, a drafting error means that it has only been applied to applicants from 1 January 2018. I'm pleased that this bill corrects this by applying the 14-month period to young people who were receiving youth allowance prior to 1 January 2018. It's anticipated that this bill will allow about 300 young Australians to claim independence for Youth Allowance purposes using the reduced 14-month period, not the original 18-month period. Labor will support this bill because we believe all young Australians have a right to a tertiary education if that's what they choose.

Although this bill will help a small number of students, the Turnbull government is making other changes that will have significant negative impacts on students. The Turnbull government has frozen Commonwealth grants to universities, and with that action it has effectively ended the demand-driven system. We have great concerns that this will lock some students out of education, and I believe this to be a terrible mistake.

We've also seen the Prime Minister propose lowering the threshold for repayment of HECS-HELP loans to $45,000, meaning that more young Australians will have to start repaying their HECS and HELP debts sooner. It was, of course, the former Labor government that lifted the caps on the number of university places, leading to a significant increase in the number of students who were able to attend a university. Since places were uncapped in 2009 there has been a 55 per cent growth in university enrolments from the poorest fifth of Australian households, and a 48 per cent growth in the number of regional and rural students at universities. That has to be a good thing. In addition, we've seen 89 per cent growth in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students attending uni, and a 106 per cent increase in the number of students with a disability attending university.

The lesson here is clear: Labor opens the door to learning and opportunity, and this conservative government, in large measure, shuts it. Already the Prime Minister's $2.2 billion cuts to universities are hitting home. Recently, the Universities Australia chair, Margaret Gardner, urged the government not to slam the door of opportunity shut on young Australians who aspire to a tertiary education. There are reports that some universities may now have to turn away students. It's estimated that around 10,000 students will miss out on a place at university this year as a result of the Prime Minister's harsh cuts.

Labor wants to ensure that Australians have access to the best possible postsecondary opportunities. Unfortunately, the conservatives want to make it harder for young people to access postsecondary opportunities. Regardless, as I indicated at the commencement, Labor does support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018 for the advantage that it gives to 300 young Australians who are seeking to manage the responsibilities of study, work and life costs.

This bill makes a minor technical amendment to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Act 2017. I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018. Despite reservations when this bill was introduced, Labor support this bill with the amendments made to it in the House. For the record our reservations about the bill concerned the conditionality of housing and homelessness funding the government was seeking to impose upon the states and territories. Concerns were quite rightly raised by the states and territories that the government was seeking to create what would in effect be a vetting role for the Commonwealth over the housing and homelessness strategies of the states. Concerns were raised by many stakeholders that the potential for conflict between the Commonwealth and the states would inevitably delay funding to the states under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. Amendments moved by the opposition and the government in the House have, however, allayed those concerns.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 in order to repeal the current national affordable housing specific purpose payment and replace it with new funding arrangements under which states and territories will be contingent on their being party to primary, supplementary and designated housing agreements. The NHHA will provide $375 million over three years from 2018-19, maintaining the current $115 million of annual homelessness funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. This funding will be ongoing and indexed in order to maintain and provide funding to frontline services that help Australians who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. To ensure that funding for frontline homelessness services is preserved the NHHA will separately identify the indexed funding to be matched by the states that relates to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

In Labor's 2013-14 budget annual homelessness funding under the NPAH stood at $159 million. In the Abbott government's disastrous 2014-15 budget $44 million a year in capital funding was cut from the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. Having an affordable, secure and appropriate home with reasonable access to services is essential to financial, social and emotional wellbeing. All Australians have the right to secure affordable and appropriate housing throughout their lives. Having a genuine chance to live near job opportunities is essential for the social and economic participation of Australians. For too many people the housing pressures they face are getting worse, not better. Australia has a housing crisis: a crisis of supply, affordability, suitability and sustainability.

Homelessness is a destructive and growing social and economic problem. It is simply unacceptable that in a country endowed with wealth and opportunity such as ours, many of our fellow Australians have nowhere they can call home. It is an inalienable human right of all Australians to have access to safe and affordable housing. There is no greater example of increasing inequality than the fact that many of our fellow Australians have to sleep on the streets, couch-surf or live in overcrowded, unhygienic and unacceptable housing conditions while others live in unimaginable luxury and privilege.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics census figures released recently show that the number of homeless Australians increased by 13.7 per cent since 2011, to 116,427. In New South Wales, my home state, the state hardest hit by the housing affordability crisis, the homelessness rate rose by 27 per cent, driven in large part by an increase in the number of people living in severely overcrowded dwellings. It pains me to say that my home state now accounts for one-third of all homeless Australians.

The government announced its intention to negotiate a new NHHA as part of its 2017-18 budget measures. The government has described the measures as 'a comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability'. Prior to the announcement of the 2017-18 budget measures, the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, told Sky News: 'The housing package will be extraordinarily large. It will be far reaching. It will deal with all groups on the housing spectrum. It will be an impressive package. It will be a well-received package.' Well, we're still waiting. As it transpired, the package that was finally delivered was not well received at all. In fact, John Daley, the chief executive of the Grattan Institute, said:

You'll need a scanning electron microscope to see an impact on prices.

I can't see any reason why this budget is going to make a discernible difference to housing affordability; a discernible difference on the number of younger people that buy a house.

This bill places requirements on states and territories, with little commitment from the Commonwealth to use its own policy levers. The bill does not include any requirement on the federal government to deliver a plan. The Turnbull government does not have the comprehensive housing strategy that is necessary to resolve the country's large and growing crisis of housing affordability and supply for low and very low income households. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have had four budgets, in which they've had the opportunity to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, and they have failed at every turn. Worse still, the superannuation measure in the last budget aimed at helping young people to save for a house deposit actually undermines the retirement incomes of young Australians. The government's housing affordability package, as a whole, has to be described as a complete sham. But, as I said in my opening comments, the amendments that have been made to the bill in the House do improve the legislation and Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018 as it stands.

The Greens support the swift passage of this bill because it is better than nothing. Decent amendments have been secured in the House—we know that—but it is a massive missed opportunity to make a meaningful difference to the lives of millions of people by ensuring we have homes for all. Real levels of funding have not been raised despite homelessness increasing by 13.7 per cent since 2011. That's just on 14 per cent. More than 116,000 people were experiencing homelessness on the census night in 2016. How disgraceful that is. It is something that should be a massive wake-up call. That was during the census of 2016. We have an idea of how bad it is, but we still have these bills before us that are so inadequate. We need a lot more social housing to balance out the marketplace. Developers in the marketplace are not a solution to the housing crisis this country is facing.

On Tuesday, there was a really important campaign launched, 'Everybody's Home'. They are calling for 500,000 new social homes. I very much congratulate all the organisations that have come together on a program that is going forward with a very solid campaign and real action to achieve more homes. The Greens have costed a plan to meet that target, yet this bill before us now barely deals with the resources that social housing needs—again, a real reminder of where this government is at. It still is committed to looking after the developers, the property speculators and the big banks to ensure that they're making more profits. It is not doing the job that any government should do: getting behind a decent policy that recognises housing as a human right and delivers the houses that are needed.

We had an interesting inquiry on this bill, and I wish to thank the secretariat for the committee and all the groups and individuals who gave evidence. It was very informative. As I've said, the Greens believe housing is a human right, and we approach this bill with that perspective. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum states that the bill engages with article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, stating that everyone has the right 'to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family', including housing, and that appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the realisation of this right. It is interesting that the explanatory memorandum actually goes to that very important international covenant that gets to the heart of how and why housing is a human right.

But, regrettably, several witnesses expressed concern that the bill as it stood was not an appropriate step towards the realisation of housing as a human right. That should have sent the government back to the drawing board to get it right. The concerns are detailed in our additional comments on that bill. I want to share with you the comments from Jenny Smith, chair of Homelessness Australia, when she gave some very useful evidence to the inquiry on the bill. These are Ms Smith's words:

We spoke earlier about how housing is a very sensible way to turn off the tap to our prisons, to assist people dealing with health problems and to lower psychiatric conditions in our community. It's not possible to participate economically and it is usually disastrous for our social participation as well. We're not going to see any progress on that until we have a joined approach in this country. As it is currently drafted, the bill does not contribute to that.

The injustice caused by the Turnbull government's approach to housing is extreme. Whenever we talk about housing in this place while the government sticks with its present position, we have to just come to the essence of the problem. We know that decent housing is essential to people's wellbeing, dignity and sense of community. Yet for decades we've seen homelessness, insecurity and affordability get worse.

Meanwhile, what's happening? Some people are getting very, very rich. These figures that I'm about to share with you are shocking. They reflect how and why inequality is on the rise. Property developers on the BRW Rich List have increased their wealth by 56 per cent in just three years. And then how gross is this: 20,000 people own six or more investment properties. That is shocking. The profit margin of property operators and real estate services rose 57.6 per cent in the financial year 2015-16, and meanwhile the homelessness figures have increased by 14 per cent in the past five years or so. It is just unacceptable. In a rich country like Australia, the fact that we can't ensure that there are homes for all is a real indictment of governments that allow that to continue year after year.

What do we hear? 'Oh, the housing market is broken.' It's not actually broken; it's rigged. It's rigged in favour of the property developers, the speculators, the bankers and the developers who are out to make money. There would be people lining up when they hear that you can make a 56 per cent increase in your profits in just three years. People would be wanting to get into that. Sadly, there are some people who do want to make profit at that level and who are, sadly, very greedy. The way housing is managed in this country lends itself to that. It's really deeply shocking. These people want houses for profits, not people.

This bill is better than nothing. I've said that and that's certainly our position. It will at least give some certainty to housing providers and crisis services, but it does little to take on the vested interests who are happy to rake in profits while people suffer. We know that the property speculators, investors and developers won't give up without a fight. With the amount of money that they're making and with their riches—

Terrible—making a profit! Shouldn't have anyone making a profit!

I'll take that interjection, Senator Williams, because I've said in here many times: we're not against profits, but the fact that you're coming in, as a Nationals MP, and trying to make out that you're concerned about people in the bush, and you come in with an interjection—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Order!

and happy to acknowledge what you're saying is that you're happy—

Order! Senator Rhiannon, you will direct your comments through the chair. And order on my right, at the same time.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The comments that were just delivered in the Senate as an interjection are informative, because I have said in here many times that I and the Greens are not against profits that don't exploit people and leave them in misery.

What is happening in this housing market at the present time is shocking. Those figures that I've just shared with the chamber are disgraceful, because we can see how they're driving inequality in this country—inequality that results in so many people not having a home. Let's remember: we're all about to go home and see our loved ones, and we've got a bed and a home to go to. But tonight there'll be about 200 people who do not have a home, and—I said it earlier and I'll say it again—as we are a rich country, that is simply unacceptable.

We know those property speculators, investors and developers, as I said, won't give up without a fight. The Greens are ready to take them on. We must reclaim housing as a human right. We need governments committed to homes for all, and that's what we should all be behind.

I rise to make a brief contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018. As Senator O'Neill has indicated, we do not oppose the bill, because of the amendments that have been made. But I do want to add my voice today to those on our side of the chamber who are speaking up for some of the most disadvantaged in our community. I refer to the first nations people in remote communities who are now wondering whether or not the Commonwealth is moving away from funding for remote Indigenous housing. I've been involved in exchanges with the minister at estimates on this matter, to establish what is happening, and I note that the minister earlier this week responded on this issue. But this is related to the bill in the sense that states are now wondering whether or not the money that has been allocated to them by the Commonwealth is going to have to be used for remote Indigenous housing. Whereas, for at least the past 10 years, the Commonwealth has put in $5.4 billion to assist with reducing overcrowding in remote Indigenous communities, the states are now wondering what's going to happen with that. When closing the gap is so high on the agenda and the government makes all sorts of comments about whether or not it's committed to this process, it is disturbing that we are now in March and in a few short months are going to see the end of the existing agreement on remote housing and there is no certainty as to what is happening.

The minister indicated to me in estimates on 2 March that he hadn't walked away from the negotiations and that there were negotiations happening. But I want to respond to something that the minister said on 2 March. I had raised concerns that the Local Government Association of Queensland had raised with me about the Commonwealth walking away. The minister said to me on that day:

The Local Government Association of Queensland are satisfied now that that has happened.

He's referring to the fact that there is going to be activity beyond 30 June. But I can assure the minister that the Local Government Association of Queensland remains of the view that there is no Commonwealth dedicated funding for remote Indigenous housing beyond 30 June. That is an absolute disgrace, as I say, when the existing arrangements will expire shortly, in a couple of months.

I also want to inform the chamber that yesterday a number of Indigenous mayors in Queensland gathered together under the auspices of the Cairns Regional Council and issued a statement. That statement read:

Mayors and local government leaders of Queensland's remote indigenous communities have vowed to increase pressure on the Turnbull Government not to walk away from ensuring a decent level of housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities.

A high level meeting of indigenous councils in Cairns today resolved to continue pushing for a continuation of the National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing, saying anything less would reverse the gains made in reaching Closing the Gap targets in relation to health, justice, education and community well-being.

The meeting was attended by mayors and representatives of the following councils: Palm Island, Torres Strait Island Regional Council, Wujal Wujal, Napranum, Yarrabah, Pormpuraaw, Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council, Hopevale, Woorabinda, Mapoon, Kowanyama, Torres Shire and Cook Shire. There we have it; the Indigenous mayors have spoken. They are concerned at this late stage as to the Commonwealth's intentions on this critical issue of remote Indigenous housing. At this late point, I call on the government to get down, make an offer. Let's close these negotiations on a bipartisan basis and give certainty for Indigenous communities.

I was going to address the issue of remote Aboriginal housing a bit later in my remarks but, to enable continuity for the millions of people who read Hansard daily, I will continue along the same theme. The future of the remote housing program is absolutely critical. I know we had a debate on this in this chamber earlier this week, when Senator Scullion presented some information and my colleagues Senator Rhiannon and Senator Siewert outlined the Greens' view on that. But certainly from a Queensland perspective—I'll restrict my remarks to Queensland in this context—it is absolutely critical that this is resolved as soon as possible.

We all know that for a multitude of reasons governments of all persuasions and to a broader extent all of us in this parliament have failed repeatedly to adequately address and properly construct programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not solely because we don't adequately listen to and enable local communities to have adequate control and input into those programs, but that's often a key reason. But this is one program, particularly in Queensland, where the benchmarks and the results have been incredibly positive. Frankly, it baffles me sometimes, given the amount of criticism of the outcomes of programs, that the government hasn't made a huge song and dance about the success of this program, immediately committed to renew it and then called on the state governments to add to it to make it even better to address the well-known longstanding problem of inadequate housing both in quality and quantity in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and deal with that more quickly because this is a program, in Queensland in particular, where all of the targets set have been met.

The most recent review of the national partnership on remote housing in Queensland showed that Queensland exceeded its targets for Indigenous employment in capital works, in property and tenancy management, and Queensland significantly exceeded its targets for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business engagement in capital works. Queensland was seen to exceed its targets in new builds and exceed its targets significantly in refurbishment after some early problems, clearly getting a good result in housing quality for those that have been built. It is a good result in regards to maintenance, and a good result for community engagement, employment and business initiatives. So we have something that's actually working and yet the whole thing's been put at risk because of another tedious state-and-federal bunfight. Out of all the things to have a state-versus-federal-government bunfight about, it shouldn't be about something as fundamental as housing—not for anybody in the community, let alone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, where that need has long been recognised.

The issue of overcrowding, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities and on the Torres Strait islands, is one that has been pointed to for years. We all know—and if we don't, we should—that if we can address that problem, as the program has started to do, we can also have significant positive flow-on effects in reducing some of the health problems that come with overcrowding, some of the child safety risks that come with overcrowding and some of the issues with school attendance and educational results that come with overcrowding.

So it's not simply about housing. It's about addressing a whole lot of social indicators and social needs on which we have not collectively as a parliament, as a body politic, made very good progress, despite all the talk about closing the gap. Surely—and I repeat this on behalf of the Greens, and particularly on behalf of Queenslanders—the federal government needs to be renewing that federal contribution for our state as quickly as possible. Or it can renew it for another two or three years and have its bunfight with the state government over that period and see if it can shame them into contributing more, if it doesn't think they're putting in their fair share. But don't put at risk all these existing jobs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their own communities. It also has flow-on effects into the more general community.

I was in Cairns recently and met with people and had a look around an establishment that provides accommodation for people with long-term homelessness. They are predominantly, but not only, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from the Cape York and Torres Strait. The more the overcrowding problem returns to communities on Cape York, the more people will flow into Cairns. Or when people come into Cairns for medical or family or other reasons they will stay there rather than go back. So it will have flow-on impacts with regard to overt homelessness in the centre of Cairns and in other regional communities. It is similar with the community of Yarrabah that I visited recently. I met with the mayor and councillors there. They're not part of the remote housing program at the moment in Yarrabah, but they certainly have a desire to get support for addressing their housing problems. Some of their problems relate to addressing land title issues. They don't have the capacity, and they need that government support, and there is a clear Commonwealth role for that.

I urge the federal government—and will certainly express my support for them if they act—to provide the support and the funding that are needed, because the need is there. In the remote housing review, the Queensland government estimated that we still need an additional 1,380 houses by 2026 to address existing overcrowding and to accommodate population growth. That includes addressing houses that are only moderately overcrowded. I know that in remote areas the housing is more expensive, but that's still not a large number. That takes me back to the core of this piece of legislation, which is significantly flawed. It has lots of holes. But of course it is better than nothing, despite being a massive missed opportunity. Regarding the funding injection that needs to be provided more broadly to address homelessness and housing needs—and let me say, when we're talking about remote Aboriginal communities we are taking about homelessness by any definition, including people flowing into major cities and being homeless there—it's a lack of political will and a deliberate, explicit decision of those in power to prioritise other things over the basic issue of homelessness.

Just today we've been talking in this chamber about legislation that's potentially going to give $60 billion plus in tax cuts to large corporations. However much they may promise that some of that will be reinvested in Australia—and how much could we even believe those promises anyway?—it sure as hell is not going to be invested in homelessness, and it sure as hell is not going to be invested in remote Aboriginal communities, or even less-remote ones. So that money that is there now, which will not be available if this government's legislation goes through, could be invested now in key needs like housing and homelessness.

In Queensland, one in five Queenslanders are in severe financial stress because of unaffordable rents and mortgages; 20,000 Queenslanders are homeless and 29,000 are on the social housing waiting list. In the state election the Greens in Queensland made an explicit point of prioritising massively increasing funding to provide for the construction of social housing, including in remote areas and in regional areas. That addresses this most iniquitous of social ills. After having food and water the next most crucial thing somebody needs is a home, and that is not being prioritised.

As the Greens showed in the state election in Queensland, you can raise the revenue, you can invest it and it is an investment in infrastructure—both public infrastructure and social infrastructure—that will bring not just social good but significant economic and employment good. The employment opportunities that occur with significant expansion in housing construction is undeniable, and that includes in regional communities. The Greens specifically promote the investment and the use of public funds to build social housing in regional communities, which will provide employment and will address clear, existing identified longstanding needs.

We have 29,000 people on the social housing waiting list. It depends which communities you go to as to how long that list is, and that can fluctuate over time, but clearly we need to expand the social housing stock and the community housing stock more broadly. If we prioritise things differently, then we can make a much bigger dent in that much more quickly than what is happening with this National Housing and Homelessness Agreement that we're dealing with today.

A core part of this, and the reason why it's not prioritised, is that, unfortunately, politically and economically housing is basically treated as a commodity, as a potential mechanism to make profit rather than as a basic human need. Our tax system and so much of our funding is being focused away from simply providing people with a home, and instead enabling other people to make major profits by dealing with housing as a commodity, and we need to reverse that.

It's no surprise that when we've had some action at the state level with addressing the iniquitous impact of political donations to political parties the New South Wales government acted first, in part due to longstanding pressure from the Greens in New South Wales, including Senator Rhiannon when she was in that parliament. And now the Queensland Labor government, to their credit—I pay credit to Senator Ketter and his colleagues in the state Labor government—are acting to ban donations from property developers. It is a small step, and we need to broaden that significantly. It's because it's been recognised how deeply the development industry, and the property industry more broadly, has perverted our public policy in a very deep and insidious way. We've got a long way to go to reverse that. On behalf of the Greens from Queensland and elsewhere, that's something we will continue to give a lot of priority to.

I thank senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Today I am speaking on behalf of the opposition about the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017. I indicate to the Senate that the opposition is supporting this legislation. We support the making of a number of technical amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to close loopholes in our proceeds-of-crime regime that have been identified in recent case law. Serious and organised crime is estimated to be costing Australia a massive $36 billion a year. This profit is coming at the expense of all Australians and does not even begin to touch the human cost of this crime, the harm to families and communities right around the country. We believe we have a responsibility to all Australians to ensure our laws are working to stop criminals from causing harm to our community. Our proceeds-of-crime regime plays an important role in deterring and preventing crime. The regime aims to deny perpetrators of crime the profits and instruments of their crimes and in doing so suppress criminal activity and return the proceeds of these crimes to society.

Since the Proceeds of Crime Act was first introduced by the Hawke Labor government nearly 30 years ago, crime has changed dramatically. Major crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking and financial crime often have an international element today. Criminals are using technology and complex financial arrangements to hide the proceeds of their crimes through increasingly sophisticated networks and structures. They're constantly searching for new loopholes in our laws. This is why it's important that our regime stays up to date. The government highlighted in their explanatory memorandum some loopholes in our regime through recent case law. There is particular concern that people may be able to wash dirty money through mortgages, renovations and home improvements in order to avoid confiscation.

This bill aims to close those loopholes. The bill will ensure the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth regime covers situations in which wealth is derived or realised directly or indirectly from certain offences. The bill will also clarify that property becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence under the act when proceeds or an instrument are used to improve the property or discharge an encumbrance, security or liability incurred in relation to the property. This would cover money that goes into alterations, repairs or other modifications to a property. Finally, the bill also clarifies that wealth or property will be lawfully acquired only in circumstances where the property or wealth is not proceeds or an instrument of an offence.

These changes do not affect existing protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act, which would continue to apply. These include the court's power to refuse to issue a restraining order if it would not be in the public interest or in the court's power to make allowances for expenses to be made out of property covered by a restraining order. Critically, this bill does not affect subsection 330(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which prevents innocent parties from being punished for acquiring proceeds or instruments of crime if they do so without knowledge of this fact or in circumstances that would not arouse reasonable suspicion. The Law Council of Australia in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill did express concerns about the adequacy of existing protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act. While Labor agrees that the protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act should be strengthened, we believe the amendments proposed by the government in this bill are necessary and urgent reforms, and we will be supporting the bill unamended. We would be happy to work with the government to strengthen the protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act and indeed, where appropriate, address the Law Council of Australia's concerns.

In conclusion, crime in our country has a devastating effect on our community, and many of the most profitable crimes such as drug crime, cybercrime and fraud affect some of the most vulnerable members of our community. They hit the young, the elderly, and the poorest hardest. If there are loopholes in our proceeds-of-crime regime, criminals will use these loopholes to make a profit off the misery of others. Labor is committed to ensuring that our proceeds-of-crime regime is up to date and robust. We believe that no criminal should profit from their crime. We will be supporting this bill.

I'd like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate. The bill will ensure that authorities retain the powers necessary to appropriately identify, restrain and forfeit property that is linked to criminal offending. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill repeals and replaces the definition of 'national standard' in the Imported Food Control Act. The former minister stated in his introduction speech that the bill is an important and final step in implementing country-of-origin reforms. It's minor but significant and will ensure authorised officers can continue to enforce the country-of-origin labelling requirements for imported foods. We support this legislation. It's important to note that country-of-origin labelling was born out of the hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 that was caused allegedly by frozen berries. Food-borne illnesses are serious and have major consequences when outbreaks occur. In 2010 it was estimated that there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal food-borne illnesses in Australia and only six deaths.

I note that Mr Joyce said in February this year that there should be better country-of-origin labelling. He said:

'We should have proper country of origin labelling.'

'Maybe other countries are not as concerned about food safety as we are.'

Mr Joyce urged Australians to seek out locally made products.

'Buy Australian and save yourself a pain in the guts.'

I have to say he should have checked his facts, because the packages relating to the suspected contaminated frozen berries were clearly labelled with the country of origin. But in this case I commend the bill to the Senate.

I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 on behalf of the opposition. I inform the chamber that we will be supporting this bill. It's omnibus criminal justice legislation designed to address inconsistencies and issues in our federal criminal law. The key focus of the bill is international crime cooperation: the way we work with and assist other nations and international organisations to tackle crime and human rights abuses. The bill expands the assistance we provide to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals. We note in relation to the Criminal Court that it brings to justice some of the worst people in the world, those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The international war crimes tribunals perform a similarly important role, trying those accused of committing atrocities and crimes against humanity, such as genocide, torture and rape, during war. These bodies perform important human rights work protecting human rights and enforcing international criminal law. Australia's capacity to provide assistance through these bodies with their investigations and prosecutions—

Order! It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Analysis by the Prime Minister's former employer Goldman Sachs has found that up to 60 per cent of the Turnbull government's proposed $65 billion tax cut for big business will go directly to foreign shareholders. Is this analysis correct? If not, why not?

I'm not aware of that particular analysis. But what I would say to you is the prospect of a return on your investment is precisely what we need in order to attract more investment into Australia so that we can continue to develop our economy, create more jobs and create an environment for higher wages. Australia needs foreign capital to develop its economy to its full potential. The more competitive we are in offering the opportunity for a higher return and higher profits, the more capital we will attract. The better we are able to improve our productivity, the more we are able to ensure we can generate in returns for our businesses. The more successful our businesses are, the more people they can hire as they grow. The more people businesses want to hire, the more competition there is for workers. And the more competition there is for workers, the more businesses have to pay to secure their services. This is what this is all about. The whole reason we need to have an internationally competitive business tax rate is so that we can successfully compete for investment from around the world into Australia—

Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Cameron, on a point of order?

It's on relevance. The issue is: how much of the tax cut is going overseas? The minister has not got to that point. That's the fundamental aspect of the question.

Senator Cameron, I've allowed you to re-emphasise the point in your question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. I believe he's being relevant to the material.

We have many Australians who started a small business and who are now Australian champions involved in global competition. If you take a business like Qantas, and I see a number of distinguished Queensland senators here, it started with three employees and today it employs 30,000 Australians. And, do you know what? It is involved in a fiercely competitive global industry.

The Labor Party wants to disadvantage Qantas by imposing higher taxes on them than their competitors face in other parts of the world. Do you know what that means? It means less job security for employees in businesses like Qantas and it means less opportunity for small- and medium-sized businesses to supply goods and services to them. We want more opportunities for people to get ahead. We want more jobs, more investment and more opportunities— (Time expired)

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question?

Yes, thanks, Mr President. I refer to Moody's Investors Service, which says in relation to the US tax cuts, 'We do not expect corporate tax cuts to lead to a meaningful boost in business investment, which has remained tepid despite a supportive economic environment.' What guarantee can the minister provide senators that the Turnbull government's $65 billion handout to big business will lead to a meaningful boost in business investment?

Firstly, I would say that if you look at the actual evidence in the real world, the tax cuts which were legislated through the US Congress reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 per cent have led to an immediate boost in investment and led to an immediate boost in capital returning to the United States. They have led to an immediate boost in confidence, they have led to an immediate increase in the number of Americans getting jobs and they have led to an immediate increase in the level of remuneration.

Let me also say that the International Monetary Fund upgraded the global economic growth outlook on the back of the Trump tax cuts that passed the Senate. But whatever your view is on the Trump tax cuts, the reality is that they're there. It's like the mountains in Switzerland; they're there. And do you know what? That now means that the tax rate in the United States is nine per cent lower than here in Australia.

Now, we can put our heads in the sand and say that it won't have any implications for businesses here in Australia, but the truth is that it will. And if we don't make decisions to pass business tax cuts, we'll hurt the economy and jobs. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Around the chamber, order! Senator Cameron is on his feet for a further supplementary question. Order on my right!

Over the last two years, wages have grown by only four per cent while company profits have increased by a massive 32 per cent, eight times faster than wages. Why should senators believe that a $65 billion handout to big business will flow through to wage growth when companies seeing massive profits have not passed those on to their employees?

The sad thing is that Senator Cameron doesn't understand economics. There is a lag between increased profits and increased investment to increases in jobs. We have gone through a period of slower global growth and we've gone through a significant economic transition in Australia, with significant drops in prices for our commodity exports. And, of course, instead of having massive increases in unemployment under our government, we've seen massive increases in employment.

In the last 12 months we've had 420,000 new jobs. If wages had grown strongly—

Senator Cameron on a point of order?

Yes, a point of order on relevance. The issue that I've raised is that workers are getting pay cuts while profits are going up—

Senator Cameron, a point of order should at least refer to the relevant issue you're raising, not restate the point you were trying to make in the question. Senator Cormann was being relevant. In fact, he was mentioning that term as you rose to your feet.

The truth is that wages growth has been picking up as the economy has continued to improve. We want wages growth to pick up more. That is why we need businesses to be more profitable and more successful, because if they're less profitable and less successful, let me tell you, they'll hire fewer people and pay them less. That is common sense! Do you think that a less successful business will be able to hire more people and to pay them better wages? It is only in the Labor Party where that sort of logic applies. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about today's figures from the ABS in relation to Australian jobs?

I'm absolutely delighted to update the Senate in relation to the labour force figures that came out today. The Turnbull government's economic policies are overseeing an extraordinary result for Australian jobs. The jobs figures released today have seen a number of records created. Today we saw the 17th consecutive month of job creation in Australia, with 17½ thousand jobs created. That's the 17th month in a row when the number of jobs in our economy has increased. This is a record high. We also have another record high, though, and that is, of course, total employment. Total employment in Australia has now risen to a record high of 12,480,500. That is an absolutely outstanding result for Australians.

In the last 12 months, as Senator Cormann stated, we've seen in excess of 420,000 jobs created. Three-quarters of those jobs—327,500—were full-time jobs. The economy is out there and business are out there and employers are out there not only creating jobs, but three-quarters of those jobs were full-time jobs. That is actually the highest number of full-time jobs created in a 12-month period since we began collecting the data 40 years ago. And, contrary to the negativity of Labor and the union movement, full-time employment is now also at a record high in Australia, with more than 8.53 million jobs.

But we acknowledge that this doesn't happen by accident. You've got to put in place the right economic policies. You've got to get the right economic fundamentals so that the economy responds positively, as it is doing. (Time expired)

Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.

Minister, in light of the 420,000 new jobs in the last 12 months of this government, could you compare it with the performance of the last 12 months of the previous Labor government?

I can. As you said, in the last 12 months to February 2018 we have seen the economy create 420,700 jobs. In the last 12 months of the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, guess how many jobs the economy created? It was 88,900. Compare 420,700 with 88,900. In the last 12 months we've seen an average of 35,100 jobs created per month under this government—more than 1,100 jobs per day. In the last 12 months of the former Labor government the average was only 7,400 per month, or around 240 a day. The statistics could not be clearer. When you have a government that understands that you need to get the economic fundamentals right, it will result in job creation.

Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.

Given the success of the policies in creating these jobs, is the minister aware of any threats to the Turnbull government's record and its policies on jobs growth?

Whilst the Turnbull government work on policies that are going to ensure that we're able to create jobs, let's face it: those opposite are out there creating taxes for pensioners. And we saw what occurred yesterday at the Press Club with Sally McManus: the ACTU—widely slammed in the press today, admittedly—calling for a class struggle which pits Australians against one another. Sally McManus of course is one of Mr Shorten's key backers. But yesterday she told the National Press Club:

This is not the country we want. This is not who we are.

But on top of that she spent most of her speech stating that she wants to change the workplace laws because they are broken. She actually bemoaned the workplace laws that were created by the former Labor government—ironically, when the current Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister. On this side of the chamber we understand: get the economic fundamentals right and the economy responds. (Time expired)

My question without notice is for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Payne. I refer to the Prime Minister, who, prior to the 2016 election, emphatically denied that the heavy sustainment work on submarines would shift away from Osborne, saying, 'The heavier work, if you like, was obviously always going to be done at Osborne, as it is now'. Now FOI documents released on Monday contradict the Prime Minister, revealing work on the relocation began immediately after the 2016 election. Why did the Prime Minister mislead the South Australian people about the minister's plans?

I thank Senator Carr for his question. There is no question of any misleading being done whatsoever. What the material which is being referred to says, and says sensibly, is that in the planning process a build of future submarines that will be undertaken in South Australia has to be examined in terms of the size of the build that is required to be done, the size of the infrastructure that is required to be established at Osborne and so on. I referred to a number of those matters in my answer to a question from Senator Patrick today. What is most interesting is the only reason we can have a discussion about this issue is that this government is getting on with the job of delivering a future submarine capability for Australia, unlike those opposite who in the entire time of their period in office did not place one single order for one vessel built in Australia for the Royal Australian Navy, not one.

Senator Carr, a supplementary question.

Minister, on what date did Minister Pyne direct Defence to suspend work on the relocation plan? And why was that work suspended?

As I think has been discussed at estimates—Senator Carr, I'm not sure whether you were in the room at the time—obviously the work that proceeds in relation to the planning under the Naval Shipbuilding Plan is based on a range of priorities. It includes the infrastructure at Osborne, it includes the work for the future frigates, the work that is being done for the offshore patrol vessels and the work that is being done for the future submarines.

Senator Wong on a point of order.

It is a point of order on direct relevance, Mr President. This is the third or fourth question after yesterday's question from Senator Patrick. The FOI documents make clear the work was suspended. We simply are asking for the date.

Senator Payne is being relevant to the question asked and is directly dealing with the material. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I don't have a specific date with me. I'm very happy to take that matter on notice and to provide advice to the Senate. However, what I would say is that the only reason we are in a position of needing to manage the presence at Osborne, the size of the development at Osborne, the infrastructure creation at Osborn is that this government has not only commissioned 12 new future submarines for Australia but also nine new frigates and offshore vessels, 54 vessels in total—in sharp contrast to those opposite, who did nothing to address the jobs issue attached to it. (Time expired)

Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.

Minister, given the work on the relocation study was clearly staged to avoid political pitfalls such as Senate estimates and the state elections, how can the government deny having politicised Department of Defence processes? Isn't it now obvious that under Minister Pyne the Naval Shipbuilding Plan has become nothing more than a Liberal Party marginal seats plan?

The proposition that Senator Carr has put to the chamber is not only fallacious, it's factious. This government is getting on with the business of delivering capability for the Royal Australian Navy with offshore patrol vessels, future frigates and future submarines, not to mention Pacific patrol boats for a number of our key regional neighbours—54 vessels in total. That process is extremely complex. It is overseen by a Naval Shipbuilding Plan with which the senator should be well familiar. And it is underpinned by a vast amount of work being done within the organisation, within the department, which the senator has asked about in estimates but chooses to conveniently forget some of those discussions on a day like today. But most importantly: ships commissioned by those opposite, the Labor Party, when in government—zero.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. The majority of Australians mistakenly believe that political parties must abide by the Privacy Act. However, since 2000 there have been almost no legal limits to the use of personal data for political purposes. The Australian privacy commissioner believes that the exemption should be reconsidered to determine whether it is appropriate, given that the data environment has significantly changed in the last 18 years. Why does the Attorney-General maintain that this legislation is appropriate in the modern data environment, particularly in light of recent revelations regarding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?

I thank Senator Steele-John for the question. Senator Steele-John, to the extent that I can I will respond, and if I have to take part of the question on notice I will. But, Senator Steele-John, the government is absolutely committed to protecting all Australians' right to privacy. As you would be aware, the Privacy Act itself contains 13 Australian privacy principles, which regulate how private sector organisations with an annual turnover above $3 million and most Australian government agencies can handle personal information. In terms of how the Privacy Act applies to—

Order, Senator Cash. Senator Steele-John, on a point of order?

I appreciate, Mr President, that the minister may not have been sufficiently briefed on this issue. However, I would like to bring her attention back to the nature of my question, which was why the Attorney-General believes, in light of the views expressed by the privacy commissioner, that the exemption is appropriate, given the modern data environment?

Senator Steele-John, you will appreciate that your question did have a lengthy preamble. I believe the minister is being relevant to part of your question. You've just taken the opportunity to remind the minister of your question. I call the minister.

Senator Steele-John, the Privacy Act, as you will also be aware, contains an exemption for members of the Australian parliament, local government councillors and registered political parties and their volunteers and contractors in relation to specified kinds of political acts and practices. The exemption is designed to encourage freedom of political communication and support the operation of the electoral and political processes. However, the exemption does not authorise entities that are subject to the Privacy Act, such as social networking services, to disclose personal information that will be used by politicians or registered political parties for political purposes. If I can get you any further information I will.

Senator Steele-John, a supplementary question.

A supplementary question, Mr President: in 2000, Labor supported the Howard government in introducing the privacy exemption for political purposes, in what the Privacy Foundation has characterised, aptly, as a deal with the devil which gives both parties special rights to exploit and misuse data. Is this not just another example in the sad litany of your lack of integrity, transparency and accountability?

Order, Senator Steele-John. I've granted substantial time after the 30 seconds.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Cameron and Senator Cormann! I will call the minister, but I remind senators to keep their questions and supplementary questions within the time limits prescribed, which are a minute for the substantive question and 30 seconds for the supplementary questions.

Thank you, Senator Steele-John, for the question, and the answer to your question is no.

Senator Steele-John, a final supplementary question.

A final supplementary question, Mr President: can the minister confirm whether Minister Tehan did in fact meet with Cambridge Analytica in April 2017, or whether any member of the Liberal Party has met with Cambridge Analytica at any time?

Senator Steele-John, I have no knowledge of any meetings, but I will always be able to provide further information if it comes to hand.

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. The Australian today revealed that the anger stemming from the government's decision to rip out $250 million of school funding isn't confined to the Victorian branch of the Catholic education system, as the minister has implied, and that schools across Australia are voicing their anger directly to their MPs. Can the minister confirm that two-thirds of the 44 Catholic schools in the Broken Bay diocese have recorded declines in enrolments for this year, after the schools were forced to increase fees? Have concerns been raised by any of the coalition MPs covering the Broken Bay diocese, including Ms Lucy Wicks, Mr John Alexander, Mr Tony Abbott, Mr Trent Zimmerman, Mr Jason Falinski, Mr Julian Leeser, Mr Paul Fletcher and Mr Alex Hawke?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question. To go specifically to the question in relation to enrolment numbers, I'm sure the senator would know that I don't precisely have enrolment numbers. I am aware of reports and I have looked back at some of the My School data surrounding some of the schools that have been reported upon and I can say that over a number of years a number of those schools have seen reductions in terms of their student enrolments. Of course, I am sure Senator O'Neill would understand that there are many factors that can impact upon the enrolment numbers in a school: the demographics of a certain community, the perceptions of that school—a whole range of different impacts. And, of course, for a number of those schools over a number of years we can see there have been steady enrolment declines that certainly pre-date any decisions of this government or, certainly, legislation passed by this chamber.

But I do note the senator's comments, to continue to mislead about the notion of school funding cuts—indeed, her reference to Labor's alleged promise of additional funding that has been made to Archbishop Hart. I wonder where all the letters to all the other school sectors are? I wonder where the letter is to the New South Wales government, which Senator O'Neill should be so concerned about? Where is the letter to the New South Wales government saying how much extra funding they would get from Mr Shorten? And I do acknowledge former minister Adrian Piccoli in the gallery today, and Professor John Hattie with him—both outstanding educators.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left.

But where are the letters to all of the state and territory ministers telling them how much extra money they are going to get?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left.

Where are the letters to the other school funding administrators telling them how much extra they are going to get?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Order on my left.

Where are the letters to the individual non-government administrators telling them how much extra they are going to get?

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins!

Of course, there are no such letters, because you've only written one letter today, because you're not standing on any principle when it comes to school funding, because you've thrown all principle out the door in favour of special deals. (Time expired)

Before we proceed, Senator O'Neill, while Senator Birmingham is blessed with a very strong voice I am still having trouble hearing him. I call on Senators Collins and O'Neill, who are also blessed with very strong voices, but cursed by having a seat so very close to me that I can hear constant interjections.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Yelling over voices from my left, Senator Wong! Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.

Does the minister agree with Dennis Shanahan when he says:

… the biggest non-state school sector in Australia was facing a short-term funding cliff and a long-term loss under Education Minister Simon Birmingham's restructured school funding.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on my left—Senators Cameron and Carr on this occasion, and Senator Colbeck. We are at least going to commence the answer to the question with some silence.

No, I do not. I am more than happy to highlight that, as part of the extra $25 billion the Turnbull government has put into school funding across Australia over the next decade, around $4 billion of that additional funding flows into Catholic Education systems, so that they see growth in their per-student funding that will exceed estimated inflation growth and estimated wages growth, so that they can deliver quality services into their schools, so that they can maintain the work for the outstanding educators in their schools, and so that they continue to support the students in those schools, who are sent there by hardworking parents who work hard and sacrifice to make sure their kids can get the best possible opportunity in their education. We are determined to make sure school funding in this nation is delivered according to the needs of the students in those schools, not based on what deals can be stitched up in back rooms. School funding should be transparent, open and needs based, and that is what the Turnbull government is pursuing.

Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.

Does Minister Birmingham agree with Greg Sheridan, who today wrote:

… Birmingham appears to be the politically stupidest, most counterproductive education minister the federal Liberals have produced.

I'll give that question the respect it deserves and highlight to those opposite that the Turnbull government has done what you lacked the guts to do. We took the true recommendations of the Gonski report and ensured they are applied in a way that is fair to everybody and provides growth in funding but is based on principle. You have no principles. You walked away from the Gonski report the moment you got it, saying we'd have a series of deals instead of consistency of school funding. You walked away from it at the 2013 election when you ripped $1.2 billion worth of funding out of state schools in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. You have walked away from it now in cobbling together a policy that doesn't address precisely what you're going to do in the long term for the bulk of students across Australia. You have not told any state government what your funding means for them, because you don't know. (Time expired)

My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. In this chamber last year I asked the government why it wouldn't agree to a royal commission into our finance sector. Former Senator Brandis answered by saying that the government had addressed issues of misconduct and that a royal commission was not needed. As we all know, only a few days later the government caved in. Only a few weeks into the inquiry, we are now hearing almost daily about the banks' disgusting conduct against the Australian public. Does the government now recognise that the royal commission was needed and that it failed to address issues of misconduct by banks as it said?

I thank Senator Georgiou for that question. It's a matter of public record that the government were of the view that there had been a lot of inquiries, that we knew the areas that needed improvement and that it was time for action. Indeed the Turnbull government has taken a lot of action, including by providing additional powers and resources to ASIC and various other measures. It's also a matter of public record that the situation developed such that it was our judgement that as all the circumstances emerged towards the end of last year, it was in our national interest to change our position, given what was likely to emerge in the context of the parliament at the time. We made a judgement to establish the royal commission. The royal commission is now underway. It's important that we let the royal commission do its work. At the end of the process, the royal commission will present its considered findings, having listened to all of the evidence from all sides, and will make a set of recommendations. The government, as we always do in these sorts of circumstances, will carefully consider what comes out of this process and respond appropriately.

Senator Georgiou, a supplementary question.

The royal commission has uncovered cases where bank officials were not only aware of misconduct but also refused to disclose that misconduct, and, worse still, have effectively misled inquiries carried out by this Senate. Our current system allows jail terms to be imposed for such conduct, so why is the government failing its people when not one banking official has been put behind bars?

There are very robust law enforcement processes in place for any conduct that is criminal in nature. There are law enforcement processes in place in relation to any breaches of relevant laws. ASIC does have very strong powers. It does have coercive powers. It has got the powers, for all intents and purposes, of a royal commission. The royal commission, of course, does have significant powers itself as well. Whatever findings come out of the royal commission will of course have to be considered and dealt with.

Senator Georgiou, a final supplementary question.

Already the findings by the royal commission have shown a need for urgent action. Does the government intend to take immediate action against the banks' conduct, or are you going to protect your banking mates ahead of the Australian public?

The government is focused on the public interest. That is what we're focused on. Banks fulfil a very important function in our economy. Banks are facilitators in our economy, and for us to be as successful as we can be we do need strong, profitable, well-regulated, stable banks. From time to time—and there are, of course, examples in recent years—things in all sorts of sectors of the economy go the wrong way. There's bad behaviour and there's bad conduct that needs to be addressed. Sometimes there are systemic issues that need to be addressed in a more systemic way. There is an inquiry, which has not yet presented its findings. The findings are yet to be presented, and the recommendations are yet to be presented. I can assure Senator Georgiou that, when the findings and recommendations of the royal commission into the banks come forward, the government will carefully consider them and will make judgements and decisions focused 100 per cent on the public interest.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Turnbull government's record investment in hospitals across Australia is benefiting patients within my home state—and her home state—of Victoria?

I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to bringing the budget back into balance, and our track record on economic growth has seen 17 months of jobs growth. It also allows us, as a government, to invest in the services that Australians deserve. We're providing record funding for new medicines and mental health services and a record investment in hospitals in every state and territory. The Commonwealth contribution to state and territory public hospitals has increased from $13 billion in 2012-13 to a record $22.7 billion in 2020-21—70 per cent over the period.

Moving forward beyond 2020, the government has put forward a generous offer to states and territories. We've committed an additional $30 billion for public hospitals, which will provide almost $128 billion over the five years from 2020. Every state would have a record funding amount—in each and every state and territory—meaning more doctors, more nurses and more services. New South Wales and WA have signed the heads of agreement, but unfortunately our home state of Victoria hasn't. Under the new deal, Victorian hospital funding would increase from $24 billion in the five years from 2019-20 to more than $31 billion in 2020-24. Daniel Andrews and Jill Hennessy have been putting politics ahead of patients in our home state, turning their backs on the more than $7 billion in extra funding for Victorian hospitals that is on the table. But, looking at the front page of the Herald Sun, they've had other things on their minds. I encourage the Victorian Labor government to follow the leadership of their WA colleagues and sign on to our hospital agreement, which will deliver recording funding support for the people of our home state.

Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.

Will the minister explain to the Senate how the Turnbull government's broader long-term national health plan will deliver better health outcomes for all Victorians?

Our government's long-term national health plan is delivering for all Victorians. We've guaranteed the long-term future of Medicare and the PBS. Bulk-billing rates have increased, and this means Australians are able to access high-quality care without impacting the family budget. We've listed 1,500 new drugs, including life-changing drugs for lung cancer and leukaemia. In relation to private health insurance, we've delivered the most significant reforms in the past decade and the lowest change to premiums in the past 17 years.

Labor's newest attack on private health insurance has been described by fund CEO Mark Fitzgibbon as a thought bubble that doesn't make sense. Even the AMA has warned that it could lead to greater out-of-pocket costs for patients. We shouldn't be surprised, I guess, that this is the response to Labor Party policy—that it doesn't make economic sense. Just ask the pensioners and self-funded retirees of Australia.

Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.

Is the minister aware of an alternative approach that is damaging the delivery of services for the hardworking people of Victoria?

State Labor Premier Daniel Andrews and his federal Labor lackeys have been alleging so-called funding cuts to Victorian hospitals. So I had a look at the numbers, and interestingly—please don't let the facts get in the way of your hypocrisy—the only cuts to Victorian public hospital funding have been from the state Labor Party government. It's true. At the Colac Hospital, Commonwealth funding increased by 96½ per cent. State government funding decreased by over 98 per cent. In my home town of Benalla, the Commonwealth government funding increased by 116 per cent, whilst under the Andrews government the state contribution has decreased by 25 per cent. It seems that the million dollars Daniel has been spending trying to keep the Ombudsman report quiet could have been better spent on health services for regional Victorians.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Minister Canavan. Minister, yesterday Fairfax reported the former water minister Barnaby Joyce approved the taxpayer-funded purchase of water from one of Australia's biggest cotton producers, Eastern Australia Agriculture, at a price well above what the seller was asking—a whopping 25 per cent more. In a separate incident, in October 2017 it was reported that, when considering a buyback from cotton producer Webster Limited for a property in western New South Wales, the former water minister ignored the department's own valuation and paid nearly double what the water was worth. Why is it, Minister, that every time the Nationals get their hands on the water portfolio rich cotton producers get richer and every other taxpayer gets ripped off and the river suffers?

I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question, although unfortunately it contains a number of incorrect claims. The water purchase from Eastern Australia Agriculture was for an amount of water that was greater than five times the figures that were quoted in the media that you referred to in your question, Senator Hanson-Young. So it's incorrect. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the government paid a price that was above the seller's price.

That is not what your own documents show.

I'll take that interjection, because you're right, Senator Hanson-Young, that we have released documents on this matter, and those documents, if you had taken the time to pay attention to them, did show that the original sale offer that you referred to was very different from the final purchase, because those documents show that the amount of water purchased was a lot more than was originally offered and, when you end up getting a lot more than was offered, of course the price has to be higher as well.

Mr President, I can assure you and this chamber that the government's purchases of water here have been advised through independent analysis and valuation. We are confident that we have purchased water at good value for money for the taxpayer. We're also confident that these water purchases will help deliver the environmental objectives and outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The government are committed to making sure that we do deliver. We are trying our best to get this delivery done, in the clear politicisation and opposition to independent advice that we've seen from Senator Hanson-Young's side and the Labor side, who have ignored the results of the Northern Basin Review and potentially put at risk the delivery of the overall plan, which is to the benefit of the whole Murray-Darling.

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right! I will hear Senator Hanson-Young's question in silence. Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.

This is a pattern of behaviour: every time the Nationals pay their mates for water buybacks, the taxpayer ends up paying more than the water is worth. Can the minister describe: is this a rort, is it a kickback or is it just good old-fashioned pork-barrelling for the National Party at the cost of the taxpayer just to look after your mates?

Government senators interjecting—

Order! Order on my right! Senator O'Sullivan! I asked senators to allow me to hear Senator Hanson-Young's question. She raised her voice, so I heard it. I will hear questions in silence. Senator Hanson-Young, I would urge you regarding the phrasing of your question—there are standing orders about statements at the beginning of questions; that approached the line. Senator Canavan.

I do agree with an aspect of Senator Hanson-Young's question—just a tiny aspect. There clearly is a pattern of behaviour here. It's a pattern of behaviour from the Australian Greens that they don't do their homework. They simply do not do their homework before they come in here. They rely on media articles from The Guardian or Fairfax without themselves looking at the documents I quoted in my first answer, which are publicly available.

So Senator Hanson-Young can reduce herself to invective and confected claims, but I would encourage her to actually look at the documents the government have transparently released in this case, which clearly show that the allegations in the articles Senator Hanson-Young referred to were wrong, incorrect, and the government is confident that we are getting value for money for the purchase of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question. I remind senators on my right of my previous rulings.

My final supplementary is in relation to reports that the head of the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations group, Fred Hooper, was told by an advisor in the minister's office that he'd receive $10 million if he could convince Labor to backflip on their opposition to the Northern Basin Review disallowance back in February. Did the minister approve this $10 million bribe? Who knew about it and did it go to cabinet?

Through you, Mr President, I can inform Senator Hanson-Young that at no point did the government offer funding to an Indigenous group to secure or obtain their support for Northern Basin Review amendments. The minister has made clear that the government was in negotiations with both Labor and members of the crossbench to gain support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Those negotiations were not successful, as the Northern Basin Review amendments were disallowed by the Senate.

As I was mentioning earlier, it is a shame in my view that those Northern Basin Review amendments were not passed, because they were based on independent advice from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the organisation the former Labor government listened to when putting in the plan, and they also committed to conducting an independent northern basin review, whose recommendations they have now rejected. That has put at risk 200 jobs. According to the MDBA, 200 jobs are at risk, because the Labor Party politically joined with the Greens rather than listen to the independent advice of the experts in this area. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Yesterday the minister was forced to correct her misleading statements made in the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday about the impact of Labor's sensible reforms to dividend imputation cash refunds. Given it is the government's entire argument that is misleading and not just her confusion between earnings and taxable income, when will the minister withdraw her misleading statement in its entirety?

I certainly take issue with Senator Sterle's use of 'sensible' in relation to your policy. Can I just say, as you should be aware, Senator Sterle, I represent the Minister for Social Services, so I will deal with your question insofar as it relates to my portfolio responsibilities. Labor's policy will take money from the pocket of—

Senator Wong on a point of order?

There is a well-established precedent, Mr President, that ministers can be questioned about statements they've made.

Senator Wong, as you know, the minister can choose to answer the question in any manner she sees fit, as long as it is directly relevant. The question is in order.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins, can you let me conclude before I get some advice? A minister is allowed to say they will answer part of the question. The question was in order, as I have outlined. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question.

Point of order, Mr President. The free advice you were referring to was making the point that she has been asked to withdraw her misleading statement in its full. Leaving a statement that is misleading in the Senate is a different issue to what you are referring to.

Senator Collins, you were interjecting on me while I was providing a ruling from the chair. That was what my comment about free advice was about. The question is entirely within order, as ministers can be questioned about their statements. The minister is also able to answer parts of the question, and I am not allowed to instruct the minister as to how they answer the question. That is a matter for debate.

I refer to the statement that I made yesterday in this place, and I suggest that Senator Sterle go and have another read of it. As I indicated yesterday, on this issue, insofar as it relates to pensioners—and I will deal with that in a moment—Senator Sterle, you need to understand that these questions in relation to this issue should be directed to the—

Senator Sterle, on a point of order?

My question was completely about the senator's statement. I asked her whether she's going to withdraw her statement in its entirety.

Senator Sterle, your question had a substantive preamble to it and commentary around it. The minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer or what parts of the question to answer when it was of such length.

I gave a statement to the Senate yesterday. That statement deals with the issue. Go and have a look at my statement, Senator Sterle.

Now I will deal with that part of your question that is pertinent to my portfolio, and that is that Labor's policy will take money from the pockets of 230,000 pensioners and part-pensioners. It is clear from the way Labor has designed this policy that it is to take money out of the pockets of pensioners. We know this. When the policy was introduced by the Howard government, with the support of those opposite, it was deliberately designed to put money into people's pockets. Pensioners with shares who will be negatively affected by this policy include age pensioners, war widows and war widowers, veterans, disability support pensioners and carers.

Can I break that down for Senator Sterle a little bit more. In Western Australia, there are 21,011 pensioners who are affected by this. So you go and explain to them the money that you're taking out of their pockets, Senator Sterle—21,000 of them! (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, do you have a supplementary question?

Yes, I do. While making the misleading statement on Tuesday, the minister claimed in relation to Labor's proposed reform of dividend imputation cash refunds, 'It's a bit like The Castle.' Is the minister's understanding of Labor's proposal based on legal advice from Dennis Denuto? Is it Mabo? Is it the Constitution? Or is it 'the vibe'?

Tell him he's dreaming!

That's right—'Tell him he's dreaming'! Thank you, Senator Cormann. As I've indicated to Senator Sterle, there are 21,011 pensioners with shares in Western Australia who will be negatively affected by Labor's policy. I now share with the Senate the figure in my home state of New South Wales—84,569. In Victoria, it's 60,956. In South Australia, it's 18,294. In Queensland, it's 42,721. And, in Tasmania, it's 6,091. So you are robbing pensioners. You are taking thousands of dollars out of the pockets of pensioners at the same time as you are exempting groups associated with your union mates. That shows your priority, Senator Sterle.

Senator Sterle, do you have a final supplementary question?

I do. Rather than trying to use misleading information put forward by the Prime Minister and Treasurer Morrison, why doesn't the minister reject their misleading scare campaign and, to quote the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Cormann, tell them they're dreaming?

Government senators interjecting —

Order on my right! Senator Cormann, is this a point of order?

It's a very important point of order. I think that Senator Sterle needs to work on his accent.

In the spirit of Thursday afternoon, I won't rule on that. Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

In the spirit of Thursday afternoon, Senator Sterle, in relation to this issue, Senator Cormann's sitting right here. He represents the minister for financial services and the Treasurer, and so there you are—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scared of asking? Why don't you ask him the question? Are you scared of asking Senator Cormann a question? Are you scared of asking Senator Cormann? My, my, my, Senator Cormann's ferocious reputation is scaring Senator Sterle from asking a question.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please resume your seat. Senator Collins.

Point of order: once again, we are simply asking the minister to be relevant to the question. The question relates to her previous statements where she prosecuted this argument in relation to pension cuts.

Senator Collins, I think it would be unreasonable of me to try and apply an incredibly strict definition of 'direct relevance' to that question, as asked; in fact, it would be very difficult to do so. Senator Reynolds.

I rise on a point of order. It relates to debate yesterday, and we've heard that behaviour from those opposite again today. Several comments from those opposite taken in isolation are one thing, but we've heard again an exchange about 'cats' and 'she'—the discussion about the 'cat's mother' and 'she'. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred repeatedly, in a very derogatory way, not to 'the minister' but to 'she'. The Hansard will show that you've also made comments about the minister being a joke. Again, this is a pattern of behaviour and language that I find highly insulting and inappropriate. It is very reminiscent of the shameful behaviour from those opposite towards Senator Fiona Nash, in terms of the language and the inappropriateness.

Senator Reynolds, I've heard your point of order; please resume your seat. I'm happy to rule, but would you like to say something, Senator Wong?

I'm happy to withdraw 'she' if that assists. I would also make the point that the 'cat's mother' reference was made by the minister herself.

Order! Senator Collins.

I too am happy to withdraw—

I would like to rule on Senator Reynolds' point of order first. Do you want to withdraw? My apologies, Senator Collins.

I would like to withdraw reference to the word 'she', if, indeed, the minister finds that offensive. But—well, I won't say anything further.

A number of the issues Senator Reynolds made towards the end of her contribution are actually matters for debate, not matters for the standing orders. I will however remind senators of the rules around parliamentary language, particularly around language that other senators find offensive, and also imputations.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, can I be heard in silence at least? I don't think there's a point of order. We have had a couple of withdrawals. I do ask all senators to keep the standing orders and courtesies towards their colleagues in mind. Senator Fierravanti-Wells, to conclude her answer.

You can go on and on as much as you like, but, in the end, the fact is that you are taking money out of pensioners' pockets—pensioners all over this country. Two hundred and thirty thousand pensioners and part pensioners are going to lose out under your policies. You're going to have to go out and explain yourself to all those people and explain why you are taking money out of their pockets.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. Can the minister outline the importance of an internationally competitive corporate tax rate for attracting investment and supporting Australian workers?

I thank Senator Colbeck for his question. Indeed I can, because we in the coalition understand that investment in this country supports economic growth and supports the creation of more and better-paying jobs for Australians. The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, my colleague Minister Ciobo, has been in Hong Kong this week at the 2018 Credit Suisse Asian Investment Conference. He's been speaking with global investors and regional business leaders about investment opportunities in Australia.

The Turnbull government appreciates that, when investors are making decisions about where to invest, there are a number of factors to consider, and corporate tax rates are a significant one. We know the global economy is very competitive. It's clear that the US, for example, are a more attractive investment proposition today than they were before their own business tax cuts. For example, Mr Anthony Pratt, a great Australian with businesses here and in the United States, has said:

(The Trump tax cuts) lead to a tremendous amount of investment, an avalanche of investment, it certainly has for us, encouraged us to increase the rate of investment and it is also going to lead to tremendous job growth—and wherever there is tremendous job growth that means demand for people exceeds supply and wages go up …

There are real, tangible benefits that flow from company tax cuts.

Investment in Australia not only drives economic growth but drives job creation. We know that reducing company tax rates will make Australia a more investable proposition. It's disappointing that those opposite refuse to back Australian workers and back Australian jobs by supporting the government's proposed company tax cuts. Given their previous positions, it is a very perplexing situation.

Senator Colbeck, a supplementary question.

Minister, how are the Turnbull government's policies helping to create certainty and drive investment in Australia, which in turn supports the creation of more local jobs?

We are absolutely focused on delivering policies which support economic growth and create jobs for Australians. We've already delivered tax relief for small and family businesses around Australia, giving those businesses the freedom to grow and to invest in their own success.

Our free trade agreements with major economic partners are making it easier for companies to invest in Australia. They recognise the importance of investment in creating jobs and raising our standard of living. The government's enterprise tax plan will deliver policy certainty for companies that are looking to invest, and it will consequently increase our attractiveness as a destination for investment.

We on this side of the chamber have always been in favour of lower company taxes, because we know the benefits will flow to workers and we know the impacts that it will have on our economy.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Order, Senator Cameron.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cameron! We only have one question to go.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cameron, the third time in a row! Senator Colbeck.

Is the minister aware of any risks to Australia's reputation as an attractive and competitive destination for investment?

It happens that I am aware of risks, unfortunately, and they come in the form of those sitting opposite: the Australian Labor Party. They're standing in the way of company tax cuts, which means that they're standing in the way of more jobs and more investment in Australia.

But it's not just their opposition to the government's tax plan that poses a risk to our global reputation as an investment destination; it's their absolute policy inconsistency. I don't often quote Mr Shorten, but let me have a go at this one from the Leader of the Opposition, who said:

Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages - thereby improving standards of living.

We all know that investors look for certainty, and the only thing that is certain about the Australian Labor Party is that they do not have a plan for jobs in this country.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cameron today relating to proposed company tax cuts.

What another pathetic performance from this pathetic government during question time—absolute nonsense coming from Senator Cormann and those on the front bench, who don't have a clue about the pressures that ordinary Australian workers are under. This is the Leader of the Government in the Senate who can't answer a question when it comes to any criticism of this government. He hadn't read the Goldman Sachs position. Malcolm Turnbull used to work for Goldman Sachs. They are arguing that 60 per cent of the profits from any corporate tax cut in this country will end up going overseas. They won't go into the pockets of ordinary Australians, battling to put food on the table, battling to get shoes for their kids to go to school. That won't happen. The money will go overseas.

The problem in the US is that the money is not going to workers in the United States. It's clear that what's happened in the United States is that a build-up of pressure for wage increases has been marginally dealt with. What's been described as happening in the US is that the crumbs of the tax cuts are going to workers. That's what the US analysis is: that the workers will not get a pay increase of any significance. They're getting one-off bonuses in a small number of companies in the US.

We've had companies here making massive profits over the last few years, and have the workers in this country had a wage increase? No, they have not; their wages have been stagnating. And all we get from this rabble of a government, from this economically incoherent government, is an argument that if you give big business a tax cut of $65 billion, somehow, wage increases will trickle down to the workers. Well, after 27 years as a union official, I know that nothing trickles down to workers. You've got to get out there and fight for an increase. You've got to get out and battle for every increase you get. But this lot over here, some of whom have never had a real job in their lives, think there's some magic out there and that, by giving a tax cut, you will get trickle-down economics in action and workers will get a wage increase.

They want to give $65 billion of tax cuts to multinational corporations and the banks. What a ridiculous proposition! We don't hear anything from this mob across the chamber about government debt anymore. We don't hear anything from them about balancing the budget anymore. We don't hear anything from them at all on this. All you get from them are these crazy economic propositions that we've seen—and Senator Cormann has been at the core of every economic decision that's been made. First, we had Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, saying we should increase the GST. That would be really helpful for working families! I think that lasted about a week. Then we had a new approach, and that was that taxing would be done by the states and that that would solve all the problems—let the states tax working people! I think that lasted two days. Now we've got trickle-down economics.

If trickle-down economics worked, it would've worked by now, because companies are making massive profits. Business executives are getting massive increases in executive salaries—Alan Joyce, $14 million a year; Chris Rex from Ramsey Health Care, $18 million a year. If anyone sitting in the audience is paying private health insurance, that's where your private health insurance is going. It's going to the executives. It won't be the workers who will be getting the money. (Time expired)

If we were playing Senator Cameron bingo, we'd have a full bingo card after that speech: all the usual tired rhetoric, all the typical slogans from Senator Cameron that he wheels out every time this issue is raised. I was ticking them off one by one: 'trickle-down economics', tick; 'corporate tax cut handout', tick. He even called the government 'a rabble', perhaps his favourite phrase of all. The thrust of Senator Cameron's accusation in question time today, in the question he asked, was that foreign investors are going to get a better return on investment for their investment in Australia as a result of this legislation being passed. Well, Senator Cameron, on that you are at least in part right. Foreign investors will get a better return on their investment in Australia if this tax cut passes, as will employees of Australian companies, as will Australian shareholders of Australian companies, as will customers of Australian companies.

Foreign investors getting a better return on investment in Australia is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing. It's a necessary thing, because, if we want foreign investors to continue to invest in Australia, if we want them to increase the level of investment that they make in Australia, then we want them to get a good return on that investment. They are not investing in Australia out of the goodness of their heart. I hate to break it to Senator Cameron, but they are not investing in Australia because of our weather; they are not investing in Australia because they like koalas or kangaroos; they are investing in Australia because they get a good return on their investment. If we can make that return on their investment better, then they will invest more. If they invest more, then Australian workers will be the direct and No. 1 beneficiaries of that investment. If we want to see capital deepening occur in our economy, we need to attract more foreign investment. If we want to see multifactor productivity in the workplace increasing, then we need to see more foreign investment. If there is anything this government can do to attract more foreign investment or more investment generally, then that's exactly what we should be doing if we are concerned about the number of jobs that this economy is creating and the wages that people are taking home.

I want to address some of the other claims made in Senator Cameron's speech then—in particular, his constant refrain that giving companies a tax cut is in some way a handout. It is not a handout to let companies retain more of the earnings that they have generated by fulfilling their customers' needs by selling them goods and services. That's not a handout at all; it's money that they've earned in the marketplace from their customers by fulfilling their needs with a product or a service. If we let them keep more of their money, and if they use that money for better returns to their shareholders, for more investment in plant and resources, for higher wages for their employees, then that is a good thing for the Australian economy. It is no handout at all.

A handout would be what Senator Cameron and his colleagues in the Labor Party are very fond of doing, which is taking money from people who are productive in the economy, from people who earn in the economy, and handing it to people who are not. That has the exact opposite effect of what you want to see if you want to generate economic growth. You don't take money from productive people and give it to unproductive people and expect that you're going to get a higher return on investment and expect that you're going to get economic growth. You allow those who are productive, who are efficient, who are profitable, to be rewarded for being so, and you will see more of that, if that's what you want to see more of.

We've also heard, as I said before, Senator Cameron's favourite bingo card phrase, 'trickle-down economics'. All you need to know about trickle-down economics is that no-one has ever described themselves as a believer in trickle-down economics. It's just a political insult. It's just something that the Left uses to throw at people who disagree with them or have a different view about economics to them. It is not describing a political or economic philosophy at all. Trickle-down economics exists only in the minds of Senator Cameron and his contemporaries.

Senator Cameron comes in here and says that this government does not have a plan or has an insufficient plan, in his view, to create more jobs and create more employment. Well, I'm very happy to stack up our plan against his plan and the plan of his colleagues, any day of the week. Our plan is to generate more investment in this economy and, as a result of that investment, for better wages to be paid and more jobs to be created. His plan and his colleagues' plan is to pass legislation to increase wages. If it were that simple, everybody would do it. If you could just make this country a more prosperous place by passing a law, then it would be the most prosperous place in the world, given the number of laws that we pass in this place. But passing laws doesn't create wealth. Passing laws requiring people to pay more to their employees doesn't create higher wages. It's totally artificial. It's a top-down central-management-style approach to economics that has failed every time it has been tried throughout history and throughout the world. The alternative policy, of rewarding those who work hard, who invest, who take risks, is the path that works. It works here in Australia. It works everywhere else in the world. If we implement it successfully with this plan, we'll see those benefits continue to flow to Australia.

In question time today we called on Minister Cormann to provide evidence that tax cuts would lead to wage growth, and he referred us to the effect of Trump's tax cuts in the United States. Let's actually look at the effect that those cuts have had. There's an article from the Financial Times. Now, you know that this is a radical socialist publication. Nonetheless, let's take an interest in what the Financial Times has to say. The article's heading is 'Trump's tax cuts herald $1tn bonanza for US investors', and then the subtitle is 'Growth in stock buybacks outstrips investment in capex, R&D and employees'. The first paragraph says:

US companies are on track this year to return a record $1tn to shareholders, as Donald Trump's tax cuts prompt boards to boost buybacks and dividends at a faster rate than their capital expenditure, research and development budgets or wage bills.

It doesn't look good, does it? If we really want to look at the Trump tax cuts, let's see what they delivering. Well, according to the Financial Times, not a great deal for wages. The article continues:

Goldman Sachs estimated in February that buybacks would jump by 23 per cent to $650bn this year, while JPMorgan predicted … that they would rocket by as much as 50 per cent to $800bn …

…   …   …

US companies have announced a record $187bn in new buyback plans so far this year—

That's what has been announced, according to Birinyi Associates, and—

Cisco and Wells Fargo lead the list, with plans to repurchase $25bn and $20bn respectively.

Goldman Sachs also sees dividends expanding by 12 per cent to $515 billion. They're some big numbers, aren't they? And how much will actually end up with workers, according to this analysis? CNN Money has estimated that, at the end of February, workers stood, at that stage, to end up with just $6 billion extra. Hundreds of billions of dollars is the range from all the analysts for share buybacks, but so far there is $6 billion for workers.

Like in the US, a sugar hit of tax cuts might do wonders for share prices and it might do wonders for executive salaries, but it's not going to do very much at all for wages and investment. The thing that is holding companies back from investing and hiring is not a lack of funds; it is a lack of demand. If you go back to that Financial Times article, it spoke of Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones—another socialist organisation:

Reinvesting had not been a priority for most large companies for some time, he said. "Companies had enough money before the tax act to hire workers, to do more capex, to invest more. The bottom line is sales hadn't picked up."

How do you get sales to pick up? It's a big question, isn't it? Here's one idea: you could increase the wages of the people who are doing the buying. It sounds a little bit like economics 101, to quote the patronising thing that we hear so often from people on the other side of the chamber. I was astounded to read the submission from the National Retail Association to the Fair Work Commission's minimum wage review. It said that wages should remain stationary—not even meet the rate of inflation—because sales had not picked up. Who do they think will be doing the spending?

If the government were serious about increasing wages, if this was actually one of their policy objectives, there is a much more efficient and much more direct way to achieve that than handing $65 billion of taxpayer money to large corporates. They could just make the request in their submission to the Fair Work Commission. But they didn't do that; they ducked that question. If the government were serious about increasing capex and investment, they could have a policy like the Labor Party's Australian investment guarantee, which provides tax benefits for future investment but doesn't reward the investments of the past. They haven't done that. When all else fails, the government argues that, irrespective of the lack of benefits, we just need to reduce our tax rates to stay competitive with the US. But, as all the economists emphasise, companies don't make investment decisions based solely on the headline tax rate. They look at things like roads, rail, labour market capacity and infrastructure, and they look to the skills of our workforce. If this government were serious they would invest in these, but they haven't. Wages, investment and international competitiveness are not policy priorities for this government; they are just political arguments.

I, too, rise to take note of the answer provided by Minister Cormann. But, first of all, I have a confession to make to this chamber. When I spoke this morning on the new tax bill, I inadvertently misled the chamber. I said that we had had 16 consecutive months of jobs growth in this country, the longest run of jobs growth ever. However, I now apologise to the chamber, because it was actually 17 consecutive months of jobs growth, which is still the longest run of jobs growth ever, on record, here in this country. So my apologies for that misleading statement.

Listening to the debate in the chamber today, to the questions and the speeches in taking note of answers from those opposite, all I can think is how much those opposite would benefit from the year 7 and year 8 economics and business study books in our schools, because any grade 7 or grade 8 student would know exactly the fallacy of what those opposite say. We heard this morning from the Greens that the solution to economic growth is investment. Well, those of us on this side agree that we do need to invest in infrastructure and social programs. But what you never hear from those opposite, and what we certainly haven't heard in these speeches on the take-note motion from those opposite, is where the money is coming from.

As I observed this morning, there is no little group of fairies at the bottom of the garden that sprinkle money-dust over the economy, just as there is no magic pudding of money. We have to earn the money. And, if you want to spend it, you have to tell us how you're going to raise it. Just spending money without actually saying where the money is coming from is not economic anything.

What have we got from those opposite? I'd just like to remind those opposite of what has been said by those who are a bit more honest, or have been more honest in the past, about what it takes to generate national wealth, and why company tax rates in the current world taxation environment are so important. What do you think Julia Gillard said as Prime Minister about the importance of tax cuts? She said this:

If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.

How right she was then. All of you opposite know that what she said then was correct and what you're saying now is not. Let's have a look at Bill Shorten and what he himself has said on a lower corporate tax rate:

The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest.

…   …   …

Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.

This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over the past 30 years.

It is not only disingenuous.

This is probably the most important measure this government has introduced, I believe, in this chamber since it was re-elected, because it is critically important, in this global economy, that we continue to not only make free trade agreements but also enable our companies to be profitable, to employ and to grow their workforce. And we can see these policies are working, through the evidence of our tax cuts and other incentives for small business, who employ 6.7 million Australians. They are expanding; they are growing. In fact, nearly a million jobs have been created—new jobs, mostly full time, and a majority of them for women. These are new jobs.

As I said, 17 consecutive months of economic growth and jobs growth are something we should be proud of and not trying to undermine in a cynical attempt to get the post-budget address-in-reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition leading up to the next election—the messages of division, of lack of hope and of fear. I think those opposite should be ashamed, because, as they well know, to survive in the 21st-century economy we need to grow the economy. We need to provide support not just to small businesses but to larger businesses so that they can grow, compete, export and employ more Australians.

We know that those opposite have been consistent on one thing: they have consistently been backing big business. If it's a choice between big business and Australian workers and Australian families, I know which side our team comes down on. We will always back Australian workers and Australian families, whereas those opposite are going to back big business. There's a real divide in this parliament over this issue. I'm proud of the stance that the Labor Party have taken on this—and we will absolutely stick to it.

I know whose side the Australian people are on, and that is our side. They know that the rubbish peddled from those opposite is exactly that—it is absolute rubbish. The funniest part of the arguments that the coalition run is that we've got to back Trump, that we've got to go down the path of Trump. I can imagine what Australian families are thinking about when they hear those opposite talking about going down the Trump path. That is exactly what Australia doesn't want. We know what they've done to their health system in America and, if we go down the path that the coalition want to with corporate tax cuts, that's what it's going to lead to in Australia. This is the path, the trajectory, that they want Australia to go down. The Australian people, Australian families and Australian workers are going to stand up against them, and the Labor Party are going to be there with them.

It is concerning that the crossbench are falling for what is basically a trick from those opposite—an ideological pursuit that they have been sticking to now for years. It's disappointing that some of the crossbench have indicated that they're willing to support it. What have they got in return? A letter from 10 CEOs—that's all they have in return—saying that these changes would mean that they would invest more in Australia. It's not worth the paper it's written on. When it comes to making those sorts of decisions, those CEOs are answerable to their board and shareholders. When they're making investment decisions, they're not going to go, 'Remember that letter I wrote 18 months ago.' Of course they're not. They're going to be answerable to their board and shareholders. They are the ones who decide the CEO's salary and terms of appointment and if they have a job or not. So this nonsense that a letter from 10 CEOs is some sort of guarantee that the crossbench should sign up to is nonsense. The crossbench still have time to work that out. They have time to say: 'Hang on a sec. This isn't good enough. This isn't going to work for the Australian people. We've made a mistake and we are going to reject this approach because it will have a devastating impact on Australian families.'

Let's look at this. We know the government already have cuts to health and education on the table. We know what they've offered up. Giving business a $65 billion tax cut means billions less for government services like health. We know the advantage that this will give to the big four banks. They are some of the most profitable banks in the world and they will be the big winners from this, getting an extra $7.4 billion in the first 10 years of tax cuts when they're already making record profits. By the 2025-26 financial year, the tax cuts for the big four banks will be $3.2 billion each year. When was the last time these banks invested that back into the community? They don't anymore. They shut branches, employ fewer people and are all talking about automation and what that will mean for their workforce. It is nonsense to think that banks getting a tax cut are somehow going to reinvest this. It will go to their shareholders. It will go offshore. It isn't going to create one more job for the Australian people. This is what the government are proposing. This is what the crossbench is signing up for.

Then we come to foreign shareholders and how they are going to benefit from this. They will be the big winners from a company tax cut. Basically, the benefits of the company tax cuts go mostly to foreign shareholders, not to Australian shareholders. There's also no connection between tax rates and employment. There is no correlation between lower company tax rates and employment or economic growth. Common sense says this. The historical analysis says this. International data confirms this as well. Tax rates are only one part of any investment decision that companies make. They do business in Australia because we are an attractive place to invest. We have a stable workforce and stable political conditions, so they know they can make a decision that will make a difference.

We also know that regional areas in Queensland and other parts of Australia will suffer from this decision because they're going to see none of the benefits that those opposite talk about. I'd say to the crossbench: it's not too late to wake up over the weekend, come back into this place and make a sensible decision for Australian workers and families.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Jobs and Innovation (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today relating to the protection of personal information.

In the wake of the revelations over the weekend regarding Cambridge Analytica and the misuse of data of over 50 million people via Facebook, Australian digital rights organisations, including Electronic Frontiers, Future Wise, the Australian Privacy Foundation and Digital Rights Watch, have released a joint media statement in which they noted:

Australian governments are pushing to collect more and more data on Australians, and to link it with larger and larger datasets. Australians must be confident that the custodians of our data will look after our best interests, proactively, and with due care and skill. We must know that our data is not being collected merely for narrow, self-interested reasons. We must be sure that this data is not being shared without our informed consent.

The media statement goes on to say:

These should be simple questions for any government or political party to answer. We look forward to seeing how trustworthy they really are.

This brings me to the questions I put to a shockingly underbriefed Minister Cash earlier today. Why do the Liberal and Labor parties believe that these privacy exemptions for political purposes are appropriate? Why should Australians trust the Liberal or Labor parties with their data when those parties collude to exempt themselves from privacy protections that apply to other organisations, and why do the Labor and Liberal parties want or need the power to exploit or misuse the data of their constituents?

The current Privacy Commissioner believes that the exemption should be reconsidered to determine whether it is appropriate, given that the data environment has significantly changed in the last 18 years. But even the Privacy Commissioner in 2000 did not think that the exemption for political organisations were appropriate at the time. Additionally, and following a comprehensive review, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the removal of political exemption from the Privacy Act in 2008.

Australians have a right to privacy. This right applies online and offline. They have a right to know why their personal information is being collected, how it will be used and who it will be disclosed to. They have a right to ask to access it for their personal information, and they have the right to make a complaint about an entity covered by the Privacy Act if they believe their personal information—and this is critical—has been mishandled. These are the protections that the Labor and Liberal parties believe that they should be exempt from. Shame!

The Australian Greens believe in upholding human rights, which apply online and offline. We believe that political bodies should not have an exemption under the Privacy Act. And, we believe, now more than ever, that there is a need for a digital rights commissioner who will serve as an advocate both in response to existing laws and proactively as new laws are proposed. The commissioner would be the advocate for the digital rights of individuals, and object to such offensive, self-serving legislation as was created here in the first place.

Question agreed to.

I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 15 on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report: Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017

March 2018

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee's) report to the Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 (the Bill).

The Bill implements changes to:

On 22 June 2017 the Senate referred the Bill to the Committee for inquiry with the report tabled on 7 September 2017. The Committee received 14 submissions and held public hearings in Sydney on 30 August 2017 and Melbourne on 31 August 2017.

Submitters provided feedback in written submissions and in oral evidence to the Committee covering all measures.

The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed. The Australian Government supports this position. Dissenting Reports by Australian Labor Party Senators and the Australian Greens recommended that the Bill not be passed. Further detail is provided on the following pages.

Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 (the Bill)

Recommendations made by the Committee

1. The Committee recommends the information regarding the Bill provided by the Minister to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills be included in the Explanatory Memorandum to assist in interpretation of the Bill

Government Response: Supported

The Government thanks the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the Bill and its recommendations that the Bill be passed and that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill be updated to include information provided to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

An addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum relating to Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill is being progressed. The addendum responds to comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest No. 8, dated 9 August 2017 and addresses dissenting reports from the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens who recommended that the Senate not pass the Bill.

The Government noted the dissenting reports from the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens who recommended that the Senate not pass the Bill. However, the Government considers that the four measures introduced by this Bill are essential to improving the sustainability of the Australian welfare system.

2. The Committee recommends the Bill be passed

Government Response: Supported

The Bill introduces four measures designed to improve the integrity and sustainability of the welfare payments system by reinforcing the residency based nature of Australia's welfare system and encouraging greater self-reliance where it is fair and reasonable to do so.

The Government is committed to ensuring our welfare system is fair and sustainable so that we can continue to support those who need it most both now and into the future. Together the measures in this Bill are estimated to improve the Budget bottom line by around $800 million over the forward estimates, and contribute to the Government restricting real growth in Government payments to 1.9 per cent.

While Australia's welfare system is already highly targeted, prudent changes, such as those contained in this Bill, are required to maintain the sustainability of the system in the

longer-term. Without sensible decisions to keep spending under control, the next generation of Australians will be left with more debt to repay and higher taxes.

These measures include:

From 1 July 2018, the first measure in this Bill will strengthen the residency requirements for the Age Pension and Disability Support Pension (DSP).

Currently, to qualify for the Age Pension or DSP, a person must be an Australian resident for a total of 10 years, with at least five of those years being continuous.

However, there is no requirement for those 10 years to be during a person's working

life—that is, between 16 years of age and Age Pension age—or for a person to demonstrate self-sufficiency during that time.

The current residency requirements are generous when compared to the qualifying contribution periods required to receive a pension in other countries. There are examples of OECD countries requiring greater than 10-years' contributions in order to receive a part pension.

Under this measure, a person who qualifies for the Age Pension or DSP will be required to have 10 years continuous Australian residence and either:

Where a person does not meet either of these requirements, they will need to have 15 years continuous Australian residence.

Australia's social security system is based on the principles of need and residency. This measure reinforces and strengthens the residence connection required before a person can qualify for the Age Pension or DSP by increasing the continuous period a person must be an Australian resident.

This measure strengthens the notion that the retirement costs of a person should be fairly distributed between countries where the person has lived and worked during their working life. The Age Pension and DSP are payments made for the long-term and once granted are generally paid for the remainder of a person's life. This measure ensures that these long term payments are linked to a period of ongoing connection to Australia through residence.

In addition, this measure addresses concerns raised by the Productivity Commission (Report No. 77, 13 April 2016, Migrant Intake into Australia) regarding the cost of parent migrants who have not resided in Australia during any part of their working lives and who subsequently receive Australian social security payments to financially support themselves in their retirement.

The community reasonably expects that those choosing to migrate to Australia should be self sufficient to the greatest extent possible. Currently parent migration requires sponsorship by a person residing in Australia through the Assurance of Support program.

The measure also contains provisions that will ensure migrants subject to an Assurance of Support can access the Age Pension or DSP. An Assurance of Support is given for migrants who enter Australia under certain visa types. It is a commitment by an Australian resident to repay certain social security payments that have been paid to migrants during their Assurance of Support period. Under this measure, where an individual receives an income support payment while under an Assurance of Support, the time spent in receipt of that payment will not be included as time in receipt of an income tested income support program.

There are also 31 International Social Security Agreements which allow people to combine periods of residence in Australia with eligible overseas residence, for the purposes of meeting pension residence requirements in Australia.

Existing exemptions to the residency requirements for Age Pension and DSP will remain, such as for humanitarian and refugee entrants or, in relation to DSP, where a person incurs a continuing inability to work after arrival in Australia.

Around 98 per cent of people applying for the Age Pension or DSP will be unaffected by this measure. Most people claiming Age Pension will already have sufficient residency because they were born in Australia and/or lived here for many years prior to reaching Age Pension age.

In relation to DSP, the vast majority of recipients are eligible for an exemption from the residence requirements due to suffering their continuing inability to work after migrating to Australia.

The second measure in the Bill will cease payment of the Basic Amount of the Pension Supplement for recipients outside of Australia after six weeks for temporary absences from Australia or immediately if the recipient has permanently departed Australia.

As part of the Pension Reform Package in September 2009, the Pension Supplement combined into a single payment the value of Telephone Allowance, Utilities Allowance, Pharmaceutical Allowance and the GST Supplement.

The Basic Amount of the Pension Supplement is equivalent to the former GST Supplement which was introduced in 2000 to compensate recipients for increases in the costs of living as a result of the GST.

The Basic Amount of the Pension Supplement is currently $23.10 per fortnight for singles and $38.00 per fortnight combined for couples (as at 20 September 2017).

Currently, if a recipient goes overseas, their Pension Supplement is reduced to the Basic Amount after six weeks temporary absence from Australia, or immediately for permanent departures.

Under this measure, no Pension Supplement will be paid if a recipient has been overseas temporarily for six weeks or has permanently left Australia.

It is important to note that Age Pension recipients, and a small number of pension recipients with indefinite portability will continue to receive their pension overseas indefinitely. Their basic rate of pension, which does not include Pension Supplement, will continue to be paid up to 26 weeks temporary absence after which it may be adjusted to reflect their working life residence.

The Basic Amount of the Pension Supplement generally represents only a small proportion of a person's full rate of income support and was designed to assist with the cost of living in Australia. There is no economic reason to continue to compensate recipients for the impact of the GST while they are overseas for anytime longer than a short term absence.

Income support recipients who are outside of Australia for more than six weeks, or who leave Australia permanently, are not likely to be impacted by the Australian GST and therefore it is no longer appropriate to continue to provide them with the Pension Supplement Basic Amount.

This measure reinforces the residence based nature of the Australian social security system and contributes to the ongoing sustainability of the social welfare system.

It is recognised that recipients who travel overseas for short periods may have ongoing financial commitments in Australia; however, six weeks is considered a reasonable period of time for these costs to be partially offset by the Australian taxpayer. This change will align the Pension Supplement with the portability arrangements for most other income support payments, which cease at six weeks. On 1 January 2013 portability periods for most working age payments reduced from 13 to six weeks and Family Tax Benefit Part A portability was reduced to six weeks on 1 July 2016.

From 1 July 2018, the third measure in the Bill will introduce more consistent income testing of Family Tax Benefit Part A payments for higher income families. This will help to ensure that these payments are targeted to those families most in need.

Currently, there are two different approaches to income testing for higher income families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A, with the test that results in the higher rate applied.

The first test, known as the maximum rate income test, reduces (tapers) the maximum rate by 20 cents for each dollar over the Lower Income Free Area (currently $52,706).

The second test, known as the base rate income test, reduces the base rate by 30 cents for each dollar over the Higher Income Free Area (currently $94,316). This applies until the payment is nil.

From 1 July 2018, the income test taper for the first test (the maximum rate income test) will increase from 20 to 30 cents for each dollar beyond the Higher Income Free Area (currently $94,316). This will bring it into line with families assessed under the base rate income test, who are already subject to a 30 cent taper. This means that the amount of Family Tax Benefit Part A payable will reduce by 30 cents for every dollar above $94,316, irrespective of which test a family is assessed under.

The maximum rate income test taper will remain at 20 cents in the dollar for the assessment of all income between the Lower Income Free Area ($52,706) and the Higher Income Free Area.

This change will ensure that all families, whether they are assessed under the base rate or maximum rate test and regardless of how many children they have, are treated the same once their income exceeds $94,316.

The Government remains committed to helping parents balance their work and family responsibilities through a range of programs and payments but this must necessarily be balanced with the responsibility to ensure family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future.

This change will only affect higher income families, who receive a lower rate of payment than lower income families, and are better equipped to absorb the effects of the changes.

This measure will improve the sustainability of the family payments system over the long term, while continuing to provide assistance to families in need.

The Government's commitment to improved child care, in conjunction with the Paid Parental Leave Scheme and Family Tax Benefit payments, ensures that parents with young children receive support to care for and raise their children. The Government's $37 billion investment in child care support over the next four years will provide genuine and much needed reform to make child care more affordable, accessible and flexible and the majority of Australian families balancing work and parenting responsibilities will benefit from the new system.

We will continue to support Australian families, but will do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, by ensuring financial assistance is provided to those most in need while also encouraging self-provision.

The final measure in this Bill will increase the maximum Liquid Assets Waiting Period from 13 weeks to 26 weeks for new income support claimants from 20 September 2018.

This measure does not apply to people with low or modest amounts of liquid assets. The extended Liquid Assets Waiting Period will only apply to those whose liquid assets are significant enough that they would serve the maximum waiting period under current rules.

Under this change, the new maximum 26 week Liquid Assets Waiting Period will apply to:

In 2016-17, the liquid assets held on average by a person serving the maximum 13 week Liquid Assets Waiting Period was in the order of $67,000. This indicates that many claimants have greater capacity to support themselves than the current Liquid Assets Waiting Period recognises.

The Liquid Assets Waiting Period is a long-standing feature of the payments system. It helps to ensure that people with the means to support themselves do so for a period, before relying on tax-payer funded income support.

The Liquid Assets Waiting Period is the period of time that a person claiming Newstart Allowance, Sickness Allowance, Youth Allowance or Austudy is expected to use their liquid assets—such as cash, bank deposits and shares—for self-support before they can begin receiving payment. Liquid assets do not include superannuation or termination payments that have or will be rolled over. Contrary to claims made by the Australian Labor Party and The Australian Greens, where a person has not been paid payments owed to them by their former employer, they are not treated as a liquid asset.

A Liquid Assets Waiting Period applies if a person's liquid assets are equal to or exceed:

Currently, the Liquid Assets Waiting Period may be between one and 13 weeks, depending on the amount of cash or other liquid assets the person has. The length of the waiting period increases by one week for every $500 held above the threshold for single people with no children or $1,000 for couples and people with children

For example, a single person with no children and $5,500 in liquid assets would serve a one week Liquid Assets Waiting Period; a person with $6,000 would serve two weeks.

Currently, the maximum Liquid Assets Waiting Period is capped at 13 weeks. The maximum waiting period applies if a person's liquid assets are equal to or above $11,500 if they are single with no children; or $23,000 if they are partnered or have children.

The maximum length of the Liquid Assets Waiting Period was set at 13 weeks in 1997, and has not changed since then. By contrast, the average level of liquid assets held by claimants has risen considerably.

Under this measure, the maximum length of the Liquid Assets Waiting Period will now be capped at 26 weeks. This is designed to encourage those with greater means, to support themselves for longer before receiving payment. It ensures that the Liquid Assets Waiting Period better reflects the current profile of claimants and their capacity to support themselves. It also better targets access to payment to those who have limited other means of support and are more in need of immediate assistance.

Claimants serving a Liquid Assets Waiting period may be eligible for certain employment services program, including jobactive. Job seekers entitled to work in Australia are able to access help from a jobactive provider, as a volunteer, for up to six months. This ensures that claimants have access to help to find sustainable work.

Claims lodged on or after 20 September 2018, will be subject to the new maximum length for the Liquid Assets Waiting Period. Claimants already serving a Liquid Assets Waiting Period on 20 September 2018 will not have their Liquid Assets Waiting Period extended.

Only the maximum length of the Liquid Assets Waiting Period is changing. The thresholds at which the Liquid Assets Waiting Period applies will stay the same at $5,500 for singles with no children and $11,000 for others. These thresholds ensure that people are able to retain an appropriate level of savings to meet the costs of finding and securing work, as well as any unexpected expenses that may arise.

The existing range of exemptions from the Liquid Assets Waiting Period will also remain in place, including for people who experience severe financial hardship through having incurred reasonable or unavoidable expenditure. This ensures that people can still access income support if their financial circumstances change and they are no longer able to support themselves.

The definition of unavoidable and reasonable expenditure will remain unchanged. Unexpected expenses include things like replacing essential white goods, funeral expenses, essential repairs to car or home, medical expenses, school expenses and motor vehicle registration.

As students often work for a period before commencing study to earn money which is saved for use during the semester on major expenses, full-time students claiming Youth Allowance or Austudy will still be able to reduce their liquid assets by certain allowable deductions directly related to their course of study. This ensures that students are able to retain the savings they need to pay for their studies.

It is also important to note that superannuation assets are exempt from the Liquid Assets Waiting Period and therefore these changes will not impact the resources of older Australians set aside to support them during retirement.

Dissenting Reports

1. Dissenting Reports by the Australian Labor Party and The Australian Greens ' Senators recommended that the Bill not be passed

Government Response: Noted.

The following addresses key concerns raised in the dissenting reports.

The dissenting reports expressed concern that this measure targets older migrants.

The dissenting report from the Australian Greens expressed concern that Special Benefit is being used to fill perceived gaps in this measure instead of being a discretionary payment of last resort. A person who doesn't qualify for Age Pension or Disability Support Pension because of the tighter residency rules could still qualify for Special Benefit.

The Government responds that access to Special Benefit remains as a safeguard for those people who experience financial hardship to ensure individuals can maintain an adequate standard of living. Special Benefit is an income support payment that provides financial assistance to people who, due to reasons beyond their control, are in financial hardship and unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves and their dependants. A person who is likely to require Special Benefit for less than three months is considered to be in financial hardship if their available funds are not more than two weeks payment. A person who is likely to require Special Benefit for three months or more is considered to be in financial hardship if their available funds are not more than $5,000. The base rate of Special Benefit is the same as Newstart Allowance. However, Special Benefit has a different income test whereby any income or in-kind support, such as free board and lodgings, is directly deducted from the amount otherwise payable. There is no allowable income free area and no graduated taper. Recipients of Special Benefit may also be entitled to supplementary payments such as Rent Assistance, and the Pension Supplement, if over age pension age.

The Australian Labor Party's dissenting report raised concern about inconsistencies in the application of grandfathering provisions. Those people who qualify for the Age Pension or DSP on or after 1 July 2018 will need to meet the new residency rules. However, people granted Age Pension or DSP prior to 1 July 2018 who subsequently lose payment will not be affected by this measure if they later seek to return to payment. They will continue to be assessed under the pre-July 2018 residence qualification rules. Grandfathering of certain payment recipients is designed to ensure people already in receipt of payment under the rules at the time of claim are not disadvantaged.

This measure is compatible with the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and to the right to equality and non-discrimination.

This is because any limitation is proportionate to the policy objective of ensuring a payments system that is well-targeted and sustainable in the context of broader, necessary Budget repair, and ensuring permanent pension recipients have an ongoing connection to Australia.

Schedule 2: Stopping the payment of pension supplement after 6 weeks overseas

Public submissions as well as the Australian Labor Party and The Australian Greens' dissenting reports claim the measure disadvantages pensioners. Concerns were also raised that there is no provision for grandfathering of the Pension Supplement.

The Government responds that it is unfair to expect the Australian taxpayer to subsidise overseas travel via the Pension Supplement. The Pension Supplement is designed to alleviate the cost of living pressures for income support recipients living in Australia, not to meet the costs of traveling overseas.

Both the Australian Labor Party and The Australian Greens dissenting reports stated that the measure will predominantly impact large families and exacerbate existing cost of living pressures.

The Government remains committed to helping parents balance their work and family responsibilities through a range of programs and payments but it is necessary that this be balanced with the responsibility to ensure family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future.

This measure will only affect higher income families, who receive a lower rate of payment than lower income families, and are better equipped to absorb the effects of the changes.

The Australian Labor Party and The Australian Greens have claimed that this measure would push vulnerable Australians further into financial hardship.

The Government responds that this measure will only affect those with greater reserves of liquid assets to draw on to support themselves, those claimants with liquid assets above $11,500 (if single with no dependents) or $23,000 (if partnered or has dependents).

Those with low to modest levels of liquid assets below these amounts who either are not subject to a Liquid Assets Waiting Period or have a Liquid Assets Waiting Period of 13 weeks or less will not be affected by this measure.

The existing range of exemptions will also remain in place, including for people who experience severe financial hardship because they have incurred reasonable or unavoidable expenditure. Also, full-time tertiary students claiming Youth Allowance or Austudy are able to reduce their liquid assets by certain allowable deductions directly related to their course of study, such as up front course fees, HECS-HELP payments, student union fees, and the cost of text books, tools or equipment required to undertake the course.

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: Inquiry into the delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 to build inclusive and accessible communities

March 2018

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report to the Inquiry into the delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (the Strategy) to build inclusive and accessible communities. The Australian Government is committed to the Strategy's vision of 'an inclusive Australian society that enables people with disability to fulfill their potential as equal citizens'.

The Australian Government remains committed to supporting communities to maximise participation and inclusion, and acknowledges the Committee's findings in response to the experiences and accounts presented during the Inquiry.

The Strategy is Australia's overarching policy framework for disability reform and the key mechanism for driving more inclusive policy and program design across all levels of government. It is aligned with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and establishes a framework to monitor the implementation of the Convention in Australia. The Strategy reflects the findings of an extensive consultation process with the Australian community, national disability and carer peak organisations, employers and industry experts. Ongoing engagement and consultation with people with disability and their representative organisations, including the National Disability and Carers Advisory Council (NDCAC), continues to be an important part of the Strategy's implementation.

The Committee's 2017 report examines the accessibility and inclusiveness of the Australian community for people with disability. It covers a number of themes that relate to the Strategy's first outcome area, 'Inclusive and accessible communities', including the planning, design, management and regulation of the built and natural environment; transport services and infrastructure; and communication and information systems, including barriers to progress or innovation in these areas. Consideration is given to the effect of restricted access for people with disability on inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.

The Australian Government's response to this Inquiry supports the Committee's recommendation that all Australian Governments recommit to the Strategy, including contributing to regular progress reporting. In September 2016, the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) Disability Reform Council (DRC) agreed to reinvigorate all governments' efforts to drive progress under the Strategy. This is particularly important as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) approaches full scheme rollout. Further reinvigoration efforts will focus on resolving NDIS mainstream interface issues to ensure smooth transitions and continuity of support, improving the evidence base, and raising community awareness of the intent of the Strategy.

The Response recognises the importance of effective cross-system coordination and continues to support DRC in this role. The establishment of a dedicated Office of Disability Strategy is not seen as an alternative coordination mechanism at this point in time. Maintaining close links between the Strategy and the NDIS within the Social Services portfolio are an important priority in the lead up to full scheme rollout. This arrangement will support work that ensures key mainstream systems are meeting the needs of all people with disability, including NDIS participants.

The Response supports in-principle the inclusion of measurable actions and goals within the Strategy's implementation plans, as well as monitoring and reporting on their progress. The Government already has arrangements in place that address these recommendations, including improved data collection and work towards the development of a more robust reporting framework to support a new national disability policy framework for beyond 2020. Similarly, the Response outlines an existing strong commitment to the continuing application of best practice principles for engaging with people with disability, their representative organisations and other key stakeholders and supports the development of best practice guidelines.

Finally, the Response offers in-principle support for recommendations seeking a revised National Disability Strategy. DRC has approved the development of a new national disability policy framework. The new framework will be informed by a strategic review of the current Strategy, involving extensive consultations with people with disability, their representative organisations and other key stakeholders.

Inquiry into the delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 to build inclusive and accessible communities

Recommendations made by the Committee

1. The Committee recommends that all Australian Governments recommit to the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and meeting associated domestic and international reporting obligations.

Supported.

In September 2016, COAG's DRC, which has as its members all Commonwealth, state and territory disability ministers and ministers of all Treasury portfolios, agreed to reinvigorate all governments' efforts to drive progress under the Strategy, including through the second implementation plan.

Commonwealth agencies are strengthening their efforts to ensure the needs of people with disability are considered in the development of all policies, programs and infrastructure. Mental health, the broader health system, and the criminal justice system will receive particular attention. These three areas are of critical importance to people with disability, and are crucial to the successful implementation of the NDIS.

At its 20 November 2017 meeting, DRC agreed to further reinvigoration activities, which include a focus on resolving NDIS mainstream interface issues; improving the evidence base in terms of data collection and reporting; and scoping the development of a targeted approach to build community awareness and promote the intent of the Strategy more broadly.

The Strategy's biennial progress reports track achievements under the Strategy, using national trend indicator data. The Australian Government is committed to the development of the Strategy's progress reports, which are important mechanisms for negotiating areas of national focus, and for highlighting areas where more attention is required.

The Strategy is an important mechanism to ensure that the principles underpinning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) are incorporated into all policies, services and programs affecting people with disability, their families and carers. All levels of government have an obligation to act in accordance with the rights provided for in the UNCRPD.

Australia's first report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN Committee), outlining the measures that give effect to our obligations under the UNCRPD, was delivered in December 2010. At its 10th Session in September 2013, the UN Committee considered Australia's continued implementation of the UNCRPD. In October 2013, the UN Committee's Concluding Observations commended Australia for many actions, including the adoption of the Strategy and the introduction of the NDIS. Australia's next periodic report is due for submission to the UN Committee in August 2018.

2. The committee recommends that the government takes to the Disability Reform Council for consideration a proposal to establish an Office of Disability Strategy under the oversight of the Disability Reform Council, as a coordination agency for the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and for the revised National Disability Strategy after 2020.

Not Supported.

The establishment of a dedicated Office of Disability Strategy is not seen as an alternative mechanism for cross-system coordination at this point in time. COAG's DRC is the key mechanism for coordinating policy and services affecting people with disability, their families and carers, across all areas of the Commonwealth Government and with all state and territory governments. This is critical where, in Australia, all governments have responsibilities for people with disability.

DRC is explicitly responsible for implementing a broad range of reforms through the Strategy to ensure services and systems are inclusive and accessible for people with disability, their families and carers. It is supported by the Senior Officials Working Group (SOWG), which comprises senior level representatives from the Commonwealth and each jurisdiction's department responsible for disability policy, first ministers and Treasury. SOWG is supported by the National Disability Strategy State and Territory Officials Working Group. This working group is chaired by the Commonwealth, through the Department of Social Services, and comprises senior policy representatives from state and territory departments with responsibility for disability services.

In November 2017, DRC demonstrated its ongoing commitment to the Strategy, by agreeing to further activities to reinvigorate it, including resolving issues relating to the interface between the NDIS and other services that assist people with disability. At this meeting, DRC also agreed to commence work immediately on preparing for a new national disability framework for beyond 2020. This work will help ensure service systems work together effectively at the local level to coordinate supports and, as much as possible, support continuity of care within each jurisdiction.

As implementation of the Strategy continues, there will be a particular focus on ensuring that key mainstream systems are meeting the needs of all people with disability, including NDIS participants. Resolving variances in mainstream service provision is essential to the success of the NDIS. Maintaining close links between the Strategy and the NDIS within the Social Services portfolio is an important priority, particularly during transition to full scheme rollout. This arrangement will strengthen and support work that ensures key mainstream systems are meeting the needs of all people with disability, including NDIS participants.

3. The committee recommends that if an Office of Disability Strategy is established, that people with disability are consulted at every stage of its development and implementation.

Recommendation noted. Refer to above response to Recommendation 2. The Australian Government does not support the establishment of an Office of Disability Strategy and remains committed to established coordinating mechanisms across all areas of government.

The Australian Government will continue to engage people with disability through the Strategy via consultations with their representative organisations and government advisory bodies, including NDCAC. To complement this approach, direct consultation with people with disability, their families and carers will be undertaken as appropriate.

4. The committee recommends that specific measurable goals for implementation of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 are created, that these are routinely monitored, and data is collected and reported biannually to the Disability Reform Council, the Office of Disability Strategy (if created) and presented to parliament.

Supported in principle.

COAG's DRC recognises the importance of monitoring and reporting progress against the Strategy as a means of determining whether life is improving for Australians with disability. The Strategy also provides a mechanism for contributing to reporting requirements under the UNCRPD. The Strategy's implementation plans seek to guide policy development across all levels of government to improve the accessibility of mainstream programs and services. Implementation aims and goals are outlined across the Strategy's six outcome areas and key actions are identified, including areas of national cooperation where further effort is required.

The Strategy's biennial progress reports track achievements under the Strategy. The first two-yearly progress report was presented to COAG in December 2015 and a second is being finalised. These reports detail specific implementation achievements of COAG partners and the extent to which the Strategy has driven reform in the design and delivery of mainstream services. They make use of national trend indicator data, and include the views of people with disability and their representative organisations. While achievements may not be immediately measurable because of the Strategy's long-term focus, a key feature of the first progress report was the inclusion of baseline population trend data to monitor and track national progress against the Strategy's six policy outcome areas.

In November 2017, DRC agreed to improve the evidence base relating to people with disability through improved data collection and the development of a more robust reporting framework to support a new disability policy framework for beyond 2020. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), in consultation with the Department of Social Services, is undertaking preliminary research, including an analysis of data gaps, as a first step towards the development of a comprehensive disability data plan for the future. This work will contribute to the development of a more robust reporting framework. The project will engage stakeholders and assess the capacity of various data sources to answer key questions about the experience of people with disability. The project is due for completion in mid-2018.

5. The committee recommends the development of best practice guidelines for detailed consultation with people with disability and their advocates under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020.

Supported.

In accordance with the UNCRPD, the Australian Government is committed to engaging with people with disability, their families, carers and representative organisations. It is important to ensure the expressed views, lived experience and ongoing advice of people with disability are reflected in the development of policies and programs that affect their lives.

The Australian Government is currently considering the best approach to the development of best practice consultation guidelines.

6. The committee recommends that a revised National Disability Strategy, with an extended timeframe of operation, be devised in consultation with people with disability, including consideration of the critical role of advocacy in this process.

Supported.

In November 2017, COAG's DRC agreed to commence a program of work to develop a new national disability policy framework for beyond 2020. This process will involve a strategic review of the Strategy and extensive engagement with key stakeholders, including people with disability, their families, carers and representative organisations; state, territory and local governments; and national, state and territory advisory councils, including NDCAC.

The Australian Government recognises the important contribution that independent advocacy continues to make in support of the Strategy's implementation, particularly in terms of assisting people with disability to access both mainstream and disability-specific services, including the NDIS. Independent advocacy will continue to play an important role in the implementation of a new national disability policy framework beyond 2020.

7. The committee recommends the revised National Disability Strategy should include development of solutions to the barriers identified to this committee.

Supported in principle.

A strategic review of the Strategy will be undertaken in 2018 to inform the development of a new national disability policy framework for beyond 2020.

The review will consider whether there has been an improvement in outcomes for people with disability, including how effective the Strategy has been in promoting, driving and embedding an inclusive response to disability across key mainstream support systems. This will be measured in accordance with national trend indicator data, together with the views and experiences of people with disability and their representative organisations.

As well as considering information provided to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for this Inquiry, the review will seek input from the National Disability and Carers Advisory Council and other key stakeholders including families and carers, advocacy and other organisations, academics and governments. The review will also draw upon the findings of key reports on Australia's progress in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The new national disability framework for beyond 2020 will build on existing actions that are driving improved outcomes for people with disability and will identify new ways for improving the inclusiveness of essential services, infrastructure and support systems.

I present the second interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the integrity of the water market in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the second interim report to extend the time for the presentation of the report of the committee 29 November 2018.

I am going to take the 10 minutes allocated to me to make a contribution to the Senate that I didn't think I would ever have to make, but unfortunately I have been pushed to this. In three months time, I will have served on this committee for 13 fantastic years. From the time I first came in here to being a fully-fledged member, I have chaired either form of the committee, being legislative or references, for 10 of those years and I have always tried to do the best in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for those in the regions who are our food producers, whether they be farmers, horticulturists, graziers, aquaculturalists, viticulturists—whatever. With the fantastic cooperation of former Senator Heffernan as chair and now with Senator Barry O'Sullivan as chair, I have always put the interests of the nation first. I am proud to say that this is one of the few committees in the Senate that does everything to keep the political crap out of our investigations and not play stupid little games where certain political parties can run off on tangents when there is an election. Most of the time we have been successful. Unfortunately, a few times, the standards have slipped. I have always been mindful that when we tour the regions or we invite those from the regions—and not just the regions, but if it is agriculture, transport or regional affairs—everyone gets a fair hearing and we appreciate their input.

We have an unwritten agreement amongst the committee. The committee has a magnificent group of senators, even though not all of them are permanent members of the committee. We've had senators come in and out who have skills in certain parts of the committee, like transport or agriculture, and we value their input. But what I cannot tolerate is when the blow-in will come in and try to tip upside down the fine work of the committee. I am going to the crux of the matter. We are doing the Murray-Darling inquiry, and, so it is very clear to each and every person listening, I don't give a fat rat's backside about the accusations of certain bad dealings of certain members of certain parliaments—I don't care. The work of our committee is to get up and down the Murray-Darling and find out how we can improve the lot for those who rely on the Murray-Darling to feed us. Other forums will investigate the accusations of water theft, and I'm not going off at a tangent here, because we know it all started after a 7.30 report or a Four Corners report. We don't care. We want to be able to go back after taking evidence from those who it matters to. And when I say 'those who it matters to', I don't mean members of parliament in other states.

We had a fantastic start to this inquiry; we spent two days in Broken Hill. This goes to show how fair dinkum we are in the Broken Hill region. I'm from Perth. I've got no problems going to Broken Hill to meet with the people that this affects in Broken Hill. I have got no problem with my fellow senators—Senator Gallacher, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator McAllister, who was with us as well, and Senator McCarthy from the Territory—because it needs to be done. We warmly welcomed the opportunity to sit in the bus all day as we visited the Menindee Lakes and the surrounding suburbs and met with the people that live and breathe this stuff. We saw the demise of grapevines and all things that had happened, and we saw the Darling River at its lowest point. But we had a senator—and I'll tell you who it is; it is Senator Sarah Hanson-Young—who had absolutely no interest. She didn't give a darn about the people that were affected, but there was an election coming up in South Australia, and she wanted to showcase. She wanted to show-pony and carry on. She never turned up to a meeting. She didn't turn up to Broken Hill. She didn't come on the bus to the Menindee Lakes and the surrounding area to hear from the people. No, no; that's too hard. But she turned up in Adelaide for our South Australian hearing to show-pony and carry on.

I'll tell you what happened and I'll go to the crux of it. This is my unwritten rule in the committee that I have always had and lived by, and I've been ably supported by all other senators. The last thing I want to hear is from politicians. When we visit the communities and the regions, we want to hear from the people. If a politician wants to come in and have a rant or a rave or even a contribution, they can do that through other means. They can do that through their local rag or through their billboards. I don't care. It's not for us; we want to talk to the people. But one certain member of parliament wanted to come storming in. He wanted to come to the inquiry, and we said: 'With the greatest respect, Minister, we don't have politicians, but we do want to hear from your department. We want to hear from the experts.'

To cut a long story short, he thought he was clever. He turned up; he didn't get to say anything. We voted unanimously as a committee, although some didn't like my ruling. I am ably backed up by the senators who were on that committee doing all the hard yards with their sleeves rolled up and not show ponies who float in to a capital city for a four-hour rant or just so they can get a photo. The worst part that came out of this, I'll tell you right now, is that I've been trying to work behind the scenes with Senator Hanson-Young to try and resolve this and to avoid this situation. But, when a senator walks into our committee and then walks outside to the waiting media and accuses me, Senator Gallacher, Senator McCarthy, Senator O'Sullivan and crew of running a protection racket for the Nationals, I've got to tell you, then I will take offence. And that is what happened.

Behind the scenes, I desperately tried to work with Senator Hanson-Young. I said, 'Let's fix this up quietly.' My deputy chair, Senator O'Sullivan, spat the chewie. I tell you, the dummy came flying out of the cot, and he was off. He recused himself from the committee, and I don't blame him, because he is a Nationals senator. He doesn't want to hear that rubbish, the same as I wouldn't want to hear that rubbish against a Labor senator, when we were trying to take the proper evidence to come up with a good report on how we can help the farmers up and down the Murray and all those who rely on it for survival and producing food for us. Unfortunately, with Senator Hanson-Young, there is form here; there is absolute form. She can come screaming down here, and she can tell me I'm wrong. You know, Senator Hanson-Young, that I tried to work behind the scenes so we could avoid this. Fortunately, I can say, the government senators are back in the tent. The government senators have recommitted because they can see through the nonsense too, and they can speak for themselves, alongside the Labor senators. We will continue this fine work because there's nothing worse.

At Broken Hill, we had the Mayor of Brewarrina who came all the way down—and I haven't driven from Brewarrina to Adelaide, but I know it's a long, long way and there are a few aeroplanes and whatnot—to come and present to us. What we actually said in Broken Hill was, 'Mate, we really want to hear from you.' This man's got a lot to say. He's been elected the mayor, for crying out loud; he's not self-appointed. But we wanted to show respect for the people of Brewarrina, and we said: 'Stop! We'll come to you. We'll come up. We'll meet you and we'll meet people that might not agree with you. We'll meet your community. You can show us; you can tell us.' That is the way the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee operates. It has operated like that for the 13 years I've been here, and it will continue to operate that way for however many more years I am here. I can guarantee it. And I know my fellow senators all have that same feeling. Anyway, there will be others to speak, but I want to make this very clear, from some reports out there.

I bet you Senator Hanson-Young doesn't turn up at Brewarrina. Senator Hanson-Young, I bet you don't turn up to any meetings. You haven't turned up to any meetings since. You didn't turn up to any meetings before. I know we won't see you. The South Australian election has come and gone. I'm not interested in how the Greens went there either. We'll continue to roll our sleeves up. We'll continue to do the hard work. I just want to make sure, when senators are making statements to the community. Senator Hanson-Young is not a full-time member of the committee. In fact, I can't remember the last time Senator Hanson-Young has been on one of our inquiries. She would've been earlier in her career. I haven't seen her around the agriculture or transport sphere for years.

Anyway—to get back to where we're going—we intend to develop a final report. We intend to give the minister every opportunity. The voices of the bush will be in our reports, and other forums can worry about other things that there are accusations against. It's just sad that it gets down to this, if this is the type of senator that we're now starting to put in, if those young ones out there think that this is clever—if you admire people that come in, you admire people that go to the media, and you admire these senators who tell blatant lies about committees. I tell you what: there are 75 others of us in here who do not operate like that. There are another 75 of us from a number of political parties who will continue to do the work that we were elected to do to represent our communities, our states and the industries which our inquiries are looking into.

I think that, before I go off into a real tailspin, I will leave it at that. I will not be daunted by one show-ponying senator who had nothing better to do that morning than to try and grab a headline.

I too want to make a contribution to discussions about this tabled report. Firstly, I want to attach myself to every single element of all the statements made then by Senator Sterle. This is a committee that I operated in firstly as a participating member, then as a voting member and more recently as the chair of the legislative dimension, which, as you know, Madam Deputy President, is a mirror of the position held by Senator Sterle.

This committee has had a tremendous reputation for as long as I've been in the parliament and, insofar as I can assess the folklore, almost since its inception. I think the reason for that is that there is so much at stake with the work of this particular committee. It oversees some very, very important areas of government performance, including transport, which is significantly important to this country, to its productivity and to the movement of goods and the provision of services; aviation, and we've got some real challenges in that space that this committee's been working away at; and, close to my heart as a member of the National Party here in this coalition government, matters to do with primary production of the type described so aptly by Senator Sterle. This committee can only do the work it does, and the good work that it does, through the collegiate nature of all the members of the committee. Politics are quite literally left at the door by committee members in RRAT in my experience. I've served on a number of committees in this place, and I'd have to say that that's not always the case.

I just want to go into a little bit more detail because the circumstances here can prove to be very, very damaging and permanently damaging to the reputation of this valuable committee work. In fact, the conduct of committees, their work, their conclusions, their recommendations and their policy recommendations are, in my mind at least, almost the most significant function undertaken by the members of this chamber. When one measures a government, one measures a government by inclusiveness; one measures a government by openness; one measures a government by transparency. They're three of the major five accepted measurements of the performance of a government. I've got to say that, if you look at the conduct of the committees' work, they score very, very highly, significantly highly, in all of those areas. It is one of the few times when the parliament formally goes to the people to ask for their input on very, very important questions and to see what their views are and what their ideas are so that the parliament can take their input and build on it and make recommendations to the government of the day. It is significantly important and it is one of the pulse tests that one would take, in my view, with respect to the conduct of a healthy democracy.

What could be the most damaging thing one could do to the reputation of this process? The most damaging thing one could do would be to make allegations against the conduct of a committee—or the committee members, in this case. Senator Sterle is right. You could not have made a more egregious allegation than to suggest that the committee, and, therefore, the members of the committee and the conduct of the committee, was running a protection racket for, in this case, the National Party, who are coalition partners in the presiding government. Is a senator entitled to make allegations against the conduct of a colleague or colleagues? Of course they are. They may have before them information or evidence of a serious nature—and there could be nothing more serious, of course, than suggesting that a protection racket is being run. That would underpin an argument of corruption with respect to this Senate, this place. With that comes the burden of being able to produce the evidence. We have other mediums in this place, including this very chamber. If you want to present evidence and share with us allegations that are made by individuals or groups or entities, then there are many mediums in order to be able to do that without damaging the committee system. The worst way you could share your concerns would be to walk out of a committee meeting because you are unhappy—in this case, with a decision of the committee with respect to one of your stool pigeons who you've brought into the committee—and make this sort of allegation, a baseless allegation, as it turns out, to the media.

Senator Hanson-Young, of course, has a history of this. I don't know whether it's because she's not that bright—think Sea Patrolor whether she is just trying to damage the inquiry because it's not going in a direction of her choosing. Nonetheless, she was afforded an opportunity by the committee to either particularise and substantiate the allegations or withdraw them. She declined to do that. Before I recused myself, when the committee resumed in public hearing, she was called upon to provide details and to particularise and table her evidence, and she declined to do that. In meetings held subsequently, she was invited again to take those measures so that the allegations she made could be assessed. I then challenged her in this chamber. You might remember. I bet every member of the chamber a carton of beer—this was some months ago—that we will never see her here in her place repeating these allegations or allowing herself to be tested and examined on the credibility of her statements.

There is a pattern here with Senator Hanson-Young. We heard it again today. She says $10 million was offered to an Aboriginal community to bring about something favourable, she says, to the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I know she's watching. I don't know which camera to look at, but I'm sure you'll get the point, Senator Hanson-Young: you are telling lies—and that makes you something. I won't go there because I don't want to lose any of my time having to withdraw.

I raise a point of order. I'm fairly sure that's a breach of standing orders.

Yes. Senator O'Sullivan, would you please withdraw that comment.

Madam Deputy President, that reference—that people aren't telling the truth—has been made frequently in this place.

Senator O'Sullivan, place resume your seat. I've asked you to withdraw what is considered to be unparliamentary language. There is no question about it. I would ask you to please withdraw.

I withdraw. Senator Hanson-Young has made a practice of not telling the truth to our committee and to this chamber. She's had every opportunity—in fact, she's got two minutes—to get herself down here and prove me to be wrong on this particular issue. She's not even here to talk to the interim report, this thing so precious to her, yet she says that the work is damaged and that the integrity of the committee is damaged. The government is going to resume and participate with the committee, because we've given this senator ample time to particularise issues relating to her allegations. She'll again be invited today to particularise what she's done.

The senator is quite an incompetent operator when it comes to challenging issues in committee systems. We've all been exposed to that frequently. She is a perennial offender, making allegations and interrogating witnesses in committees and in estimates without one single iota as a basis for the statements she makes. Senator Hanson-Young, if someone were to challenge my integrity and indicate that I had not told the truth, I'm telling you that, as fat and old as I am, I would come through the doors of this chamber and they would come off their hinges. So I wonder where you are, Senator Hanson-Young. Where are you? Let us all just pause and listen for her defence of herself. Nothing but silence.

She needs to be condemned for these actions, Madam Deputy President. She needs to be condemned for the potential that these actions have for the integrity of the entire committee system. She needs to be condemned for the potential damage they can have on this Senate, because these committees are, indeed, sitting as the Senate. I call on her one more time: Senator Hanson-Young, make your way down here and defend yourself.

Senators would know I only came back into this chamber a few months ago. I know some things changed in the 10 or so years that I wasn't here, but I'm fairly sure there used to be a convention when I was here previously that, if senators decided they were going to launch what was clearly a fairly direct, pre-meditated pile of personal attacks on a fellow senator, they would give that senator notice of that. That convention may be dead now, along with many other conventions in this place that, sadly, have crumbled to dust in the meantime. Nonetheless, I think it's not too bad a convention to look at trying to revive.

Clearly, I wasn't part of this particular committee and the hearing and the various incidents that have riled the two previous speakers, so I don't profess to express an explicit opinion about what did and didn't happen. But I will say in regard to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young that to suggest that she has some sort of feigned temporary interest in the Murray-Darling because of the South Australian election is clearly wrong. I'll leave it at that. The evidence on the record in this chamber is very clear, including today in question time. The South Australian election is over. If her interest were solely because of that, she wouldn't be continuing to pursue the matter as she did in question time today. She has a long history over many years of involvement, activity and engagement with the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin and its impact, particularly on her home state of South Australia. Certainly, from the period of time prior to my coming back in this chamber, I know well and truly more than enough to be able to say that it is simply incorrect to imply or, in some cases, explicitly allege that Senator Hanson-Young's engagement with this issue is somehow just a transient thing as a result of the South Australian election.

I do agree with the previous speaker that it is important to try to have our Senate committees function in a way that is collegiate and as cooperative as possible. Again, I think that is something that became far less frequent in the intervening decade when I wasn't here. I'm not saying it would have been any better if I had been here during that period, but that is also something that has clearly declined. Where those committees—those groups of people—do operate collegiately and are working reasonably effectively and cooperatively, that's great, but we all know it's not always possible, particularly on an issue as vexed as the Murray-Darling Basin.

To try to single out just one person from all the individuals and say that they are somehow destroying collegiateness with regard to the operation of a Senate committee I think is grossly unfair. If no-one else is going to speak on this, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later, to enable Senator Hanson-Young to respond at some stage. To suggest that she doesn't care enough because she is not here—how many people normally turn up on a Thursday afternoon to talk to committee reports, except for me?

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Senator Sterle does occasionally; I will give you that. Many of these reports are tabled with barely a comment at all or they are reserved for other times for people to speak on, or people cover them in other contexts. We all know that. Half the time I have polite jibes from people from other parties about how much time I spend talking about various reports that get tabled here. I think it's a valuable thing to do, but I can appreciate that people have many demands on their time when it comes to what they do when they are in this place and they have many opportunities to put on the record their views and their concerns about a particular issue. Again, I would very much emphasise that Senator Hanson-Young has repeatedly, much to the irritation of the government, in particular, put on the record her views and her concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin. Clearly she gets under the skin of some on the government benches, in particular—

Senator Bartlett, please resume your seat. Senator Gallacher, on a point of order?

Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I draw to the attention of the Senate and yourself that this is taking note of the second interim report. I'm not sure that Senator Bartlett has touched on the second interim report as yet in his 4½-minute contribution.

I understand the motion before the chair is that the recommendation that the reporting date be extended be agreed to. That's the question before the chair. And just to clarify with you, Senator Bartlett: you indicated you might seek leave to continue your remarks later, but this motion in fact has to be dealt with and will not be saved by that mechanism.

In that case, I'm sure Senator Hanson-Young will find another way to deal with it. With regard to the motion, certainly it's something that the Greens are not going to oppose. It looked like Senator Gallacher might want to speak to the motion as well, although if the purpose of the motion was to spend one minute talking about the need to extend the committee's reporting date and nine minutes slagging off another senator without warning them, then to complain about me and to try to prevent me from responding to those attacks, again, is hardly an act of collegiateness or allowing people to put their side of the story.

If we do want to talk about ensuring our committees operate in a collegiate way, I'm sure all of us could point to multiple examples of people from other parties in this place making allegations far more serious than what seems to have got under the skin of Senator O'Sullivan, including people from the government side who are actually chairs of committees. If you want to look at trying to clean up behaviour with regard to Senate committees, don't worry about the specks in other people's eyes and look at the log in your own. I suggest that would be the way to go. There is plenty of cleaning up to do with regard to, particularly, one government member who is a chair of the committee. I won't single them out and name them, because I don't want to send this off down another tangent. But there is plenty of room for improvement for people on all sides.

I hope this newfound principle of polite behaviour that Senator O'Sullivan is putting forward to us all is a creed that he's sowing amongst his colleagues as well, going around the various committees and saying that we need to be more collegiate in the way we behave in committee hearings. I'll go along with him if he likes, through some of the different committees—around estimates time perhaps, when we see some unduly harsh and combative behaviour by fellow government or Labor senators. I'll be there with him in the spirit of collegiality and improving behaviour for everybody. If he wants to put that principle out there, then let's see how well it's followed by his colleagues.

I rise to take note of this report and, in particular, to support the committee's recommendation that the Senate grant an extension of time for the committee to report.

I do that for a very simple reason. When you are on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, you visit rural, regional and outback areas, where people place an enormous amount of faith in the Senate committee system. They come to these hearings in quite large numbers; they give their evidence in a very truthful, honest and forthright way; and they hope, fervently, that there is going to be a careful evaluation of the evidence, some strong recommendations from the committee and, as is the case with a references committee, perhaps some action and recognition from the government. The only way that we can actually achieve that is when we're quorate. That requires a government senator to sit and give quorum to the references committee. If the actions of a senator—or a number of senators—drive apart the cohesive nature of the committee, it is detrimental to the whole process and the whole history of Senate committee work.

I chair the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and have quite enough to do, but, when an issue that affects South Australia comes along, and one as important as this issue, I will do everything I can to attend those hearings. In this case, I was a substitute voting member of the committee. The actions in South Australia were quite untoward, and I felt equally as offended as the committee chair, Senator O'Sullivan, by the allegation that there was somehow a protection racket for the Nationals and, in particular, a protection racket for the Hon. Barnaby Joyce.

Now, all the people who know me, Glenn or any other members of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee would know we are a pretty robust crew and we don't run protection rackets for anybody. For a senator to step outside the committee hearing, into the hallway, address the media and say, 'The committee is running a protection racket for the Nationals,' I found extremely offensive—extremely offensive. As a matter of fact, my immediate reaction was to say, 'Why I am bothering to participate in this inquiry, give it oxygen, so someone can misuse Senate procedure and protocol in such an ordinary way?' There will be people who say, 'They're all attacking Senator Hanson-Young because she's a Green, she's progressive,' whatever. Well, there's a bit of history to this.

I didn't ask, but the Senate, through whatever process it is, asked me to chair the inquiry into the allegations about Nauru. I found that inquiry quite confronting. I found that for the people dealing with the evidence that was given to that committee—you can't read this stuff endlessly and remain the same. There was a lot of really confronting evidence put to that committee. And it was on that committee that I first saw the modus operandi of Senator Hanson-Young. I wasn't particularly happy with that operation, but we participated. The government, the opposition, the Greens and the cross-bench parties went through and produced what I thought was a substantial report, and we did get some success.

Then, when we moved on to another inquiry that I ended up on that was not part of my normal duties in the Senate, which was the inquiry into the Great Australian Bight, I was accused of selling my soul for 5,000 pieces of silver—for a donation to the South Australian Labor Party—and of being in the thrall of the mining and exploration companies. I thought, 'That isn't what the Senate process is all about.' But we battled our way through that.

But then we come to the inquiry on the Murray-Darling Basin—100 years of negotiation eventually reduced to a plan. When we knew that South Australia probably had the best compliance and the best metering, and the best bureaucrats at actually working out how to be very frugal and use water properly, we went to that state to take evidence about that, only to have that completely derailed by what appeared to be a gratuitous, unfair, incorrect comment. I found that completely reprehensible and not worthy of what this great Senate committee system does.

We wanted to take evidence about what was going right in the system, at the end of the system. And if there was untoward activity in New South Wales or the upper northern basin or anywhere, then we could use that evidence and make genuine recommendations about how to make it better. We knew that there were various inquiries going on in the New South Wales jurisdiction. We knew that the minister was looking at things. We knew that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was looking at it. But we were on an evidence-gathering exercise, to make clear and concise recommendations based on evidence taken, and, hopefully, to keep all of the quorum of the committee together, and to get a just result for those people who came and really put their heart and soul into it and gave evidence and, in some cases, almost pleaded with us to produce a report that would deliver them some fairness, some equity, and at least get their viewpoint heard at the upper levels of government.

I do pride myself on working within the Senate committee structure. You will never find me, as the chair or not as the chair, talking to the media and making statements in the actual deliberation phase. When the report's finished, talk all you like. But, while we're in deliberation, let's work collegially and effectively together.

I point to the report that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee did, The constant battle. Every government member and every crossbench member, and that includes the Australian Greens party members—everybody on that committee—worked collegially and effectively, and got a report up which had 20 of its 22 recommendations accepted by the government, and not only accepted by the government but funded.

That's what we were trying to do in this exercise. And I thought it was a disgrace and most unfortunate that the evidence of good, hardworking people around this country was all thrown into abeyance on the actions of, essentially, one person. Whatever their motivation was, they can speak to that themselves. I'm only talking about the facts here. I was so personally offended I didn't want to continue on that committee. But, having regard to the people who give evidence, you have to. So we'll get over this, and we'll produce a report, and hopefully it'll do exactly what these Senate committees do: produce evidence based recommendations that make life better for those people in regional and rural Australia.

We do not have to go down the avenue of a minister—and I've got to say this: he's one of mine; he's on our side; he's a Labor Party member—demanding that he appear before a committee to read a diatribe, and I say 'a diatribe', about the federal minister. That's not what Senate committees are there to take evidence about. His allegations were his allegations. He had his own parliament to raise them in. He had a media crew outside to raise them. On what basis could we use that sort of contribution as evidence?

I don't want to get too wound up about this, but I do think that the Senate process is an excellent process and it can work very well, and it's a shame that it didn't work as well as it should have in this case. But let's hope we can get on track again and produce a collegial report that does some good.

Question agreed to.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed—Senators Duniam and Stoker

Economics Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Macdonald

Appointed—

Senator Stoker

Participating member: Senator Macdonald

Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member [for the committee's inquiry into the 2016 election]: Senator Stoker

Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Fawcett

Appointed—

Senator Stoker

Participating member: Senator Fawcett

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Future of Work and Workers—Select Committee—

Discharged—Senator Reynolds

Appointed—

Senator Stoker

Participating member: Senator Reynolds

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Political Influence of Donations—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—Senator Stoker

Public Works—Joint Statutory Committee—

Discharged—Senator Smith

Appointed—Senator Stoker

National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Red Tape—Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Regulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—Senator Stoker

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Stoker

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the urgent need to establish an effective, safe means of eradicating asbestos from our community which does not result in landfill contamination, which in itself becomes an environmental hazard; and

(b) calls on the Government to co-ordinate a national asbestos management and disposal plan.

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, the Australian government's peak advisory body on asbestos issues, released a report analysing 11 projects involving asbestos removal from buildings and seven projects involving the removal of asbestos from contaminated land. The report showcased a series of findings based on the learnings from these projects. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency was established in 2013 to facilitate a national approach to managing asbestos in Australia. Preventing the risk of asbestos exposure is the agency's core purpose. When releasing this report earlier this month, the agency's CEO, Mr Peter Tighe, confirmed that the only way to reduce asbestos-related diseases in Australia is by preventing exposure to this deadly substance, and that means completely removing it from our community. However, in showcasing these projects, which the agency classes as best-practice examples of effective and safe approaches to asbestos removal, the agency failed to acknowledge that none of these projects has actually removed asbestos from our community. Instead, by landfilling the asbestos removed from these sites, these projects have simply shifted the problem from one location to another and from our generation to another.

Landfilling of asbestos, as with many other wastes, is considered best practice. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency itself believes that landfilling is commonly accepted as the best way to dispose of asbestos, to minimise risks to the environment and public health. However, our country's acceptance of landfilling continually fails to acknowledge the true economic and environmental impact this has. Let me assure you: landfills are a threat to our health and to our environment. Landfills release toxins into our soil and groundwater and become environmental hazards for years. They produce leachate, which is the liquid formed when waste breaks down in the landfill and water filters through the waste. This liquid is highly toxic and can pollute the land, groundwater and waterways. Landfills produce greenhouse gases, in particular, that wreak havoc on our environment. They release fibres into the atmosphere from surface contamination caused by burrowing animals and erosion and have a serious effect on wildlife. Landfills devalue land and result in the loss of land that could be used for other purposes like housing and industry. Landfills require ongoing management and monitoring for years, and their use simply means we are passing our issues from one generation to another.

In 2014-15, Australians produced 64 million tonnes of waste. That's 2.7 tonnes per person. Most of that was from construction demolition and commercial, industrial waste. Our population is expected to grow to 40 million by 2050. This will equate to over 100 million tonnes of waste each year. Australia has a waste problem, yet nothing is being done to address this. Local government is arguing with state government that, apparently, it's not a local government responsibility but a state responsibility. State governments are fighting amongst themselves. Just this week the Queensland Labor government sought to reintroduce a waste tax ultimately aimed at stopping New South Wales rubbish from crossing its border and making Queensland the eastern seaboard's waste dumping ground. Every day in Queensland we're taking up to 90 B-double trucks full of New South Wales waste, deadly and toxic asbestos and rubbish. Well, I've got a message for the New South Wales government, which continues to transfer its waste into my backyard of Ipswich: you can keep your own shit in your own backyard.

Senator, there are generally standards applying to language in this chamber, and that is not a word that is accepted here. I would ask you not to use such a word again.

I won't be using it again; I've had my say. On a federal level, this government and the Labor Party continued to sit on their hands. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency highlighted the growing waste problem and called for action by all levels of government. In December 2016, the federal government was given the opportunity to not only tackle our waste problem head-on but also lead the world in asbestos waste eradication through the introduction of thermochemical conversion technology, a process which destroys asbestos fibres and produces a non-hazardous, inert recycled material that can be used in a broad range of construction applications. This technology has a 20-year development history, with regulatory and environmental protection authority approvals in the USA to convert asbestos and to destroy PCBs. Yet, instead of embracing this technology and exploring its application in Australia, this place has instead chosen a do-nothing approach.

Is this because there are questions around the veracity of the technology? No. Is this because there are concerns regarding the project proponents? No. Is this because asbestos isn't a major issue in our present society? No. It is simply because the wheels of bureaucracy have ground to a halt. For a government that prides itself on innovation, this is simply unacceptable. The Turnbull government's own innovation statement acknowledges:

It has often been easier for government to continue with the ways things have been done rather than embrace new technological opportunities.

It's time Malcolm Turnbull and his government introduced this innovation to save communities and people's health in Australia.

Australia has the highest per capita incidence of mesothelioma in the world, with an average of 700 deaths each year. The rate of all forms of asbestos related disease is up to five times this number, resulting in approximately 4,000 deaths per year. Australia was one of the highest per capita users of asbestos-containing materials for decades until the late 1980s, and we now have to deal with the significant legacy issues associated with that use. This legacy relates not only to product contained within our homes, our workplaces and even our surrounding infrastructure but to the legacy created by our ongoing reliance on burying this hazardous material and continual contamination of our land.

If we choose to ignore the opportunity that thermochemical conversion technology presents to treat asbestos waste, we are condemning future generations of Australians—my grandchildren, your grandchildren—to dealing with this problem. Innovation is not just about robots and applications for our iPhones; it's about creating cultural change, embracing solutions for existing problems and ultimately rectifying our mistakes. One Nation, and I personally, will continue to badger this government for this thermochemical technology to come to Australia. I think it's so important. I heard about the recent fires in New South Wales, and we have an asbestos problem there now. What are they going to do with it—bury it somewhere else? And then we have the landfills that will never ever be worth anything or can never be built on.

This is a program that will actually clear land and get rid of the asbestos in our society. One fibre is all it takes. One fibre in someone's lung and it's not a matter of 'are you going to die'; it's a matter of 'when you're going to die'. Wake up and start dealing with our problem.

Indeed, this notice of motion by Senator Hanson raises a very important issue. I'm a child of the 1950s. Those of us who, sadly, remember back that far know now of this hazard. As a child, we would play with asbestos. It made terrific swords, and you won the fight when you struck the other child's sword and broke it in two—releasing, I imagine, millions of these fibres into the atmosphere and certainly within close proximity to where you were.

I want to deal with Senator Hanson's motion in three parts, if I might, because, as you read it, it is itself in three parts. She notes the urgent need to establish an effective, safe means of eradicating asbestos from our community—and I'll deal with that separately to the issue of what happens with the disposal of this commodity—and the talk of coordinating a national asbestos management and disposal plan. Let me finish with that.

Senator Hanson is right to suggest that per capita we're up in the top percentage of countries whose citizens are exposed to this terrible condition resulting from inhaling asbestos, and there's a reason for that. The reason is that, per capita, we used more asbestos in our building industry than almost every other country on earth. It was a revolutionary product of its time.

There are two types of asbestos. There's an A type and a B type, but both of them were introduced to this country in the postwar period. Again, you can still see evidence as you move around our country of what a revolutionary building material it was. It went into every aspect of construction in this country. We clearly were clueless, as a nation, about the potential problem. We built entire schools out of asbestos and asbestos related material. We built all of our homes out of it. Again, I refer back to when it was a very common practice for children to play with asbestos and punch an asbestos wall. That was when you knew you were tough and ready; you could punch a hole through an asbestos wall—and hope you didn't get the stud. It took me a while to find out that you should look for the line of nails before you threw the big right cross! Nonetheless, it was a very common practice.

But this is a very serious issue, as raised by Senator Hanson. On the question of establishing an effective, safe means of eradicating asbestos, this government has taken a very strong approach to this. Senator Hanson referred to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council, ASEC. As an aside, the government has just doubled the funding for this organisation. This council—I think there are nine members on it, from memory—is designed to provide advice to government and to the states and local government. It's a national resource to provide a focus on asbestos issues that go 'beyond workplace safety to encompass environmental and public health' issues. So it is unfair to say, as her motion suggests, that this government—and I'm sure there were measures under the previous government—has not established an effective, safe means of eradicating asbestos from our community. That's happening.

I know from some experience—and I hope all of my colleagues on the other side listen carefully when I say I have no business interest any longer. I was at some stage involved in quite comprehensive business exposure in construction, which many times included the removal of asbestos and asbestos products. I can tell you that there are no other products—other than solids that come from the liquid waste industry—that require such protection when they're being removed and buildings are being dismantled. The whole site has to be sealed off so that there can be no airborne transfer of these invisible fibres. The asbestos products, where possible, are wet and soaked to minimise the release of fibres in demolitions and in the removal of the material. It can only be done by professionals, so tradespeople who haven't got the special qualifications cannot be involved in this procedure. This asbestos is taken and seal-wrapped. Only certain vehicles are allowed to carry hazardous waste when there is more than 10 cubic metres of the material. It's taken off to a facility where it is dealt with according to the processes available generally through local government.

Apart from the establishment of this national resource, the regulation around dealing with asbestos products and the removal of them is largely a state responsibility. I often dislike it when others hide behind what the states need to do and what federal responsibilities are, but this area is largely covered by by-laws and regulations of local governments. The overall workplace health and safety requirements to deal with the protection of workers, and the safe and effective removal and transporting of this material and its disposal, are state government responsibilities. So I think it is unfair that Senator Hanson's motion notes 'an urgent need to establish an effective, safe means of eradicating asbestos from our community,' because I think ASEC does that. It's a competent body. It's made up of experts. It's very well funded. As I said earlier, it has now has had its funding doubled. And it is a national resource.

So this is not something that is required to trickle down through federal or state or local governments. All of those bodies and identities can rely upon ASEC for information. They are a cast of professionals who are determined to do whatever is at their disposal in terms of advancing sciences to deal with this. I think it would be unfair to suggest that, confronted with the potential of a new technology that would be much better than the existing practices—thermochemical conversion—they would ignore that. These people have no stake in these matters, other than to provide the three tiers of government, and others, with the very best advice possible out there. I remain satisfied. I would need to know more about it. I don't want to challenge Senator Hanson in relation to thermochemical conversion, because it seems she has spent some time in coming to understand the technology, but I would urge her, at the earliest possible opportunity, to present what she knows of that technology to ASEC, because I imagine they would be willing to assess the potential of the technology and then recommend to governments accordingly. In fact, I would be somewhat surprised if they weren't already aware of the potential of that process for use.

The motion calls on the government to coordinate a national asbestos management and disposal plan. Again, this is some of the work of ASEC—that's one of their responsibilities—so this element of the motion is already dealt with. Senator Hanson may have a view, based on what she knows, that she doesn't think they're doing a terribly good job of that. There is no evidence before me that that's the case. My inquiries, as I prepared for this, suggested that they are a very well respected bodies across all tiers of government. Their work is progressive. They are continuing to look. Indeed, as a result of recommendations they've made from their own due diligence and applying the science to this, there have already been massive improvements around the way that asbestos management is dealt with in this country and, indeed, asbestos is disposed of.

Senator Hanson-Young—Senator Hanson, I should say. I suspect I could have offended two senators at once there! Senator Hanson is right to say that we should take every available measure to minimise the amount of material that goes into landfill, particularly hazardous material and material that has long life, as would be the case, I suspect, with asbestos. I've got to say, the other side of the chamber, when they were in government, paid a lot of attention to this, as has our government and as we all continue to do. There has been massive progress with respect to the management of hazardous waste and, in fact, material that goes into landfill over recent decades. This government and previous governments have spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars supporting technologies and practices to do with transfer stations where waste goes. Putting hazardous waste aside for a moment, that waste is separated in looking for the potential to recycle it, even if it's not cost-effective to recycle it, as is the case with many types of waste.

Senator Hanson is right to point out that, if there is any measure whatsoever that would allow us to deal with waste, particularly hazardous waste, in a way that neutralised the hazard of the waste, it should be undertaken. But it wouldn't make sense for organisations such as ASEC, which have been formed specifically with this intent, to act as she suggests. They've got no position to protect, other than their reputation at doing the work, determining best processes, technical and otherwise, and providing that contemporary advice to all levels of government and other industries in this country.

There has been a massive amount of work done to ensure that there are no asbestos products coming into this nation now. About two years ago, I recall a visit to a facility on an unrelated matter in Brisbane. It was a transit centre for goods that are both exported and imported. The principal of the company was showing me massive amounts of product in there. It looked perfectly all right to me—motorbikes, motor vehicles and other commodities that had been sitting in their facility for months and, in some cases, years. It was there because small traces—in some cases, very small traces—of asbestos had been detected. I am not even in a position to tell you which government would have been in power on the day, but I would imagine it would not matter. The Labor Party have a very, very high commitment to and pride themselves, along with our government, on creating the highest standards and safest possible environment for workers and our citizens. Billions of dollars are spent over every budget cycle to ensure, for example, that there's no contamination in our waters. We spend billions of dollars on our environment, supported by everybody, to try and protect our environment as best as we can.

When I hear that there is a process and I hear that we have a specialist professional body whose job it is to scour the planet to try and find the best possible practices and technologies to deal with the scourge of this terrible, terrible thing that produces mesothelioma, to me it denies logic that technology exists that has not been adopted. Sometimes the adoption of technologies can be slower than one would like, particularly when you've got something as serious as this. You have to be absolutely certain that the technology is foolproof and that, in being applied to deal with a serious problem, it does not create another serious problem. As undesirable as it may be that it is in landfill, if that is the best way to protect our citizens from this terrible plight, then that's what needs to happen.

I don't want to challenge the views that Senator Hanson has formed on this, because I don't have the information before me. Accordingly, I say to Senator Hanson: if she has empirical evidence—academic studies or trials from the United States or any other developed nation where they've paid attention and stuck to the scientific principles when they've looked at these matters—she ought to take it directly to ASEC so they are be able to assess it. I'm certain that they'd be prepared to correspond with her and brief her if they've already done some assessment. Senator Hanson, I extend an invitation to you here, through my speech: I'll come with you. If you've got a body of academic evidence or industrial evidence that supports this as a commercially sound and superior method to deal with this terrible commodity, then I will come with you. We will go to see them together, and, as colleagues know, I won't blink when it comes to bringing people to proof on something. I'll test them. If they say it's no good, I won't leave until we know why.

We've got other measures. I imagine—and the minister may be able to nod and confirm this—ASEC is probably subject to attending estimates in some form or another, if it's a body funded by the federal government. So Senator Hanson ought to consider bringing them to estimates, at which time we can then properly evaluate, through examination of their officers, just what they are doing, what they intend to do, what their knowledge is of this thermochemical conversion process and what their assessments are to date. They may well have a perfectly sensible explanation as to why it might not work. We've had many emerging technologies over time, not just industrial technologies but biological technologies and manoeuvres. Think cane toad. I used to love the cane toads when I was a young fellow on a Friday night with a golf stick. But, at that point, they were no further north than Townsville, and now, of course, they're even in northern Western Australia. They are a terrible scourge. There was the introduction up my way of prickly acacia, a bush that was meant to be fodder for dry times. It is now choking massive tracts of land in Central Queensland and in the Central West.

So I exercise a voice of caution with new technologies. I know nothing about this technology. I can't extend an invitation, but I'm certain that the relevant minister—I imagine it is perhaps the environment minister, given it's to do with matters of landfill—would provide Senator Hanson with a full and complete briefing with respect to this and any other emerging technologies that might be under active consideration. In the meantime, Senator Hanson, whilst I do agree with you on many occasions, I can't share your view that a government funded initiative through ASEC, when providing advice to state and federal government and to local authorities, would ignore best practice and best technology that had any potential whatsoever to provide a safer environment for the removal and disposal of asbestos and for the good health of everyone in this nation. My invitation stands. I'll wait to hear from you.

I rise to support the motion that has been put forward by Senator Hanson. While I welcome her new-found interest in and awareness of this issue of asbestos, I would like to inform her that the issues that she's canvassing are matters that on this side of the chamber have been very well ventilated in recent history. I also want her to be aware that the unions, which she often pillories in this place, are at the forefront of trying to address this modern-day scourge and tragedy for working people. The unions that she criticises so vehemently have been working very hard to address this issue.

For the information of Senator Hanson, as she didn't make reference to it in her contribution today, the Senate Economics References Committee conducted an inquiry into non-conforming building products. In fact, that broader inquiry is still ongoing, but we did take the opportunity to have a particular look at asbestos, given the significance of that issue. It was part of our inquiry into non-conforming building products. The report was handed down in November of last year. I am very proud to be the chair of that committee and to be responsible for that report.

The committee conducted hearings across the country on this matter, and we heard from workers and asbestos support groups in Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. One of the things that particularly concerned me was the number of times the committee heard that frontline workers and community advocates were the last line of defence in identifying asbestos in building and consumer products. All too often it is the workers that alerted management, whether it be a building company or a subcontractor, to the fact that asbestos was being found in products—building products, in particular. But I will mention that it is not just building products. We still have asbestos coming into this country in the most surprising forms, and I will deal with that.

We've just had recent examples of asbestos being found on building sites in Brisbane, for example. We found it in the form of gasket jointing sheets on 1 William Street, Brisbane, a state government building. It was only the workers who had been trained in identification of asbestos who actually discovered this material and were able to put a halt to its installation. We also saw asbestos in unitised roof panels at Perth's children's hospital in July 2016 and asbestos-contaminated plant equipment in the Nyrstar project in Port Pirie, in South Australia, in August 2016. In many cases, what is going on here is that the asbestos material is being imported by Chinese companies from Chinese manufacturers. Yuanda Australia is a company name that has come up a number of times in the course of our inquiry.

We noted in the course of our inquiry that the national asbestos ban has been in place since 2003. That is a total ban on asbestos coming into Australia since 2003. In fact, to his credit, it was then Minister Abbott who implemented that ban at the time. However, one of the concerning aspects of the inquiry was that we found Border Force did not issue any regulatory notices until 2016, some 13 years later, to give effect to the ban and to properly notify those involved in the importation of building products as to their obligations in respect of asbestos. It was 13 years down the track. On a matter of life and death, which this is, it's not good enough.

Our inquiry also highlighted inconsistencies in the definition of asbestos used across countries around the world and how this, along with the lack of due diligence on the part of importers, has led to Australians being exposed to asbestos and is why it continues to come into the country. We know that asbestos is one of those products which has no known safe exposure limit. So, whilst we say that we have got a ban on asbestos coming into the country, unfortunately, the track record is that that ban is not effective, and more needs to be done in that regard. As Senator Hanson has noted, we have, in this country, the highest reported per capita incidence of asbestos related disease in the world. It's predicted that around 25,000 Australians will die from asbestos related disease over the next 40 years. The stories of those affected by asbestos are really heartbreaking stories.

I want to talk about the fact that what Senator Hanson is raising is, in effect, going over something of old ground. It was canvassed by the Senate Economics References Committee and was the subject of a majority set of recommendations. Unfortunately, coalition senators did not support the majority recommendations in their entirety and they made some additional comments—and I'll talk about that. But Senator Hanson's point about having a coordinated approach to the issue of asbestos is well made. In fact, recommendation No. 1 of our inquiry was:

The committee recommends that through the Council of Australian Governments, the Australian Government pursue a coordinated and consistent whole of government approach to strengthen federal and state legislation and regulations to address the illegal importation of asbestos.

Recommendation 2 was:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government adequately fund the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency—

which Senator Hanson has referred to—

so it is able to deliver the next National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness and to carry out its other functions, both current functions and new functions set out in recommendations in this report.

This is contrary to Senator O'Sullivan's contribution, where he indicated that there has been a doubling of funding for the agency. I would be very interested in where that information is and how old that information is. During the course of our inquiry we had the opportunity of speaking with Mr Peter Tighe, the CEO of the Asbestos Safety Eradication Agency, and he raised concerns back in October about current funding arrangements and the ability to deliver on future strategic plans. I'm going to quote from Mr Tighe:

It's quite clear, though, when looking at our operational budget, including a financial report that was done in relation to the agency some 18 months ago, that the costing for operation is probably double what is in appropriation. I don't think that even touches on the work that will need to be done in relation to establishing the next phase of plans. Whilst my appointment expires in August, I'm more concerned about whether the agency would be in a position to deliver the policy position that government wants to take forward. Unless we get some appropriation that exceeds what's currently earmarked, there will be some problems.

He then went on to say that he's taken proposals to the minister and he's working with the department. I will quote him again:

The difficulty is the work that has to be done in relation to the development of the next national strategic plan, providing the evidence to the jurisdictions to support that plan and the work that is required by the group that I have in my office—we wouldn't be able to fulfil that. It would, basically, neutralise the agency, where we would have to reduce the staff dramatically to, probably, an executive officer and a chair. We still are required under our legislation to deliver certain things. I don't think we'd be able to meet the objects of our act if that money's not provided.

That's direct evidence from Mr Tighe in October of last year. That is a huge concern for people around Australia.

We want to see the government take a leadership role. They should take a leadership role in this matter. The asbestos agency, if I can call it that, is well placed to provide the planning and the research that's necessary for that, but the government does need to coordinate with other jurisdictions. It's not good enough for Senator O'Sullivan to draw out the fact that this is a state issue. I know he is not pinning his entire argument on that, but that doesn't derogate from the need for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role to address this issue. It needs a leadership role at the border to stop the material coming through but also in terms of legacy asbestos products out there, which are ticking away as a time bomb. There is a need for coordination so that that huge problem can be dealt with.

We are constantly seeing examples come up where this issue recurs. We've had the situation of the people who lived around the Wittenoom asbestos mine in Western Australia. We know that more than 2,000 people, many of them the wives and children of mine workers, have died due to exposure to asbestos at the nearby mine or in the town of Wittenoom itself. In 2014 we heard of the terrible situation of the Wunderlich factory in Victoria at a place called Sunshine North, where it emerged that dozens of people who lived around that factory had contracted cancer, asbestosis and other conditions after asbestos was left unsecured at the site. We heard of Mr Chris Frohlich, whose mother lived about a kilometre from the factory for about 20 years. She had died in September 2013 of aggressive lung cancer. Her father had died of pulmonary fibrosis and her brother of mesothelioma—a terrible tragedy. This is a product which we should give top priority in terms of attention. So I do welcome Senator Hanson's focus being put onto this issue, but there has been a lot of work already done to try to address this issue. I note that, with regard to the Senate Economics References Committee report on asbestos back in November 2017, we are waiting for a government response in relation to that aspect of the report.

The risks of asbestos remain—and not just through potential landfill contamination, as Senator Hanson has pointed out. We are now seeing the third wave of victims who might have been exposed to asbestos through DIY renovations in older homes and product importation, whether it be substations, gaskets, insulation, vehicles or even children's toys. I'll take a minute to highlight once again that we have things like children's crayons and beaded toys being found to contain asbestos. I think a lot of people out there—particularly the mums and dads of Australia—would be very concerned to know that things like crayons have been found to contain asbestos. There is also the CSI game, named after the TV program, which involves police inspectors. Part of this toy is a package of what is known as dusting powder for fingerprints. But that dusting powder actually was found to contain asbestos. These are the sorts of things that people need to be aware of.

Products that contain certain types of talc are also known to contain asbestos. There are gloves that are known to contain asbestos, as well as fire blankets; electrical cloth and tapes; brake linings or blocks; textured paints or coatings; yarn and thread; cords and string, whether plaited or not; and mineral samples for display or therapeutic purposes. There are a whole range of products out there that have been found to contain asbestos. That is a pretty scary list, and during that inquiry I was gobsmacked when I learnt that there could be asbestos in children's toys in our country. That doesn't tell me that the issue is under control. That doesn't tell me that the government has taken all appropriate steps to address this issue.

One of the recommendations of our inquiry was that the Australian government establish a national public asbestos register. I feel particularly strongly about that matter. As I say, the mums and dads of Australia absolutely need to know if they are giving their children asbestos crayons to chew on.

I will take some time to go through some of the other recommendations from our inquiry, because they are important recommendations, and I encourage the government to provide a response to us in respect of this. Recommendation 8 was particularly important. It talked about 'mandatory asbestos awareness training for a wide range of occupations in the construction industry' and providing 'adequate funding for nationally accredited training for this purpose'. As I mentioned earlier, all too often we are finding it is actually left to the workers to discover the use of this asbestos material, and it's only because they've received this training that they are in a position to do that.

Recommendation 10 was the recommendation that the asbestos agency that I referred to 'develop a one-stop shop website to provide a single point for participants across the supply chain to access information regarding the illegal importation of asbestos'. Recommendation 20 is also worth noting:

The committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments work together to develop nationally consistent legal obligations to require the removal and/or disposal of illegally imported asbestos (if it is safe to do so following consideration of the hazards likely to be faced by the workers undertaking the work) and to make importers responsible for the cost of such removal and/or disposal of asbestos.

Finally, recommendation 25 went to the issue of the national public asbestos register, a very important initiative that I certainly commend to the government.

Senator Hanson talked about the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, so I won't detail that any further, but I do think it does a lot of good work. Again, I thank Senator Hanson for raising the issue and lending her support to a cause that Labor has been pushing for years. The union movement has been pushing this issue for years. I urge Senator Hanson and others on the crossbench to take up this issue with the government and to ask the coalition to properly fund the agency so it can implement not only the work that it is currently tasked to do but also the new measures that have been recommended and that may be picked up. These are measures that can save lives going into the future.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank others who provided evidence to the inquiry and who take up the fight against asbestos day in and day out: the ACTU; the CFMEU; the AWU; the AMWU; the ETU; the MUA; the Nurses' Union; other workers rights groups; the Australian Asbestos Network, with a special mention to Vicki Hamilton and the support and advocacy groups right across the country; and, lastly, the Queensland government, for leading the way in its response to non-conforming building products with its groundbreaking legislation on supply chain responsibility, which hopefully can be seen as a template that other jurisdictions will follow.

In conclusion: unfortunately the government senators described our recommendations as overreaching. They said that the ASEA has enough money. That's not the case. It's time for the government to step up on asbestos.

I also rise to speak to notice of motion No. 761, moved by Senator Hanson, regarding a national asbestos management and disposal plan. I thank Senator Ketter for his contribution. It was a contribution which certainly contributed to my knowledge, and I think that there are certain facts that I may be able to convey to him that answer some of the questions that he addressed as he spoke. We haven't seen any indication that the responsible body is not doing its job at this stage, but I'm now aware of Mr Tighe's requests and I think action has been taken since those, particularly during the MYEFO, and that may be where this money has come from. It would certainly be worth updating the Senate Economic References Committee on that. Perhaps action has been taken without formal notification back to the committee that this action has been taken.

I believe that the government is working to solve this scourge—and it is an incredible scourge, as Senator Ketter and Senator Hanson spoke about. It is an unbelievable situation that asbestos could get into toys and into children's crayons. I remember that over many, many years in the military it was used in ships and armoured vehicles. It was used in gloves that we used to change hot machine-gun barrels. The commonality of it created that great lottery of whether or not you got asbestos poisoning. Asbestosis existed for many, many years, and who knows why some were touched and others were not touched? So it's a very important issue. It's an enormous issue. Senator Hanson cited the statistic that 700 deaths per year are suffered in this country, and certainly it is a scourge—that is a word rarely used, but it is a scourge now and it will continue to be a scourge for some time. The value of Senate committees in addressing things like this is just becoming apparent to me, as I learn more about how the Senate operates.

Many understand the history, and we've had some exposure to the history from the last couple of speakers, but I will go through that history in a little bit more detail. An awful number of people have suffered, and many are still suffering and many will suffer as we go into the future. In last Sunday's fire at Tathra, as Senator Hanson mentioned, there was real fear about the older houses. Before the building regulations, which I know have been abused in the past, came in, many of the older houses contained asbestos, whether their owners knew it or not. Of course, when a house burns down, particularly on a day like Sunday, where the wind was in the 60- to 70-kilometres-per-hour area, it will spread anything far and wide. In my adjournment speech on Monday night, I spoke about the value of the police, who established roadblocks, often against the will of many people who wanted to get back to their places and see what had happened—and you can understand that emotional response. But the response of the New South Wales Police Force in cordoning off the area and restricting people going back to see whether they had lost their houses or not is something that, in a tragedy, all of us have got to understand. So asbestos is with us each and every day. There certainly seems to be an awareness, and let's see how we are handling that—and I'll go through that in the rest of my presentation.

The one person who seems to symbolise this tragedy is Bernie Banton. Much has been said and written about Bernie Banton. We remember the pictures of Bernie Banton, a man who used to describe himself as 'a man with a hose up his nose'. He was a man who, as a working-class hero, as many described him, led the fight against companies, such as James Hardie, that used asbestos over many, many years and a man whose family suffered incredibly from the work that they did in asbestos factories. In the end, it killed Bernie, as it has killed many, many other people.

What many people don't understand now, I think, is exactly what has been done about solving the asbestos problem. The government is determined to protect workers and the community from what we've described as the scourge of asbestos. The Australian government certainly acknowledges the significant health and community concerns, and Bernie Banton is an example of this—only one example and an example from many, many years ago, but it's still going on today.

It's a complex challenge, and the government's aim is to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres and eliminate asbestos related disease in Australia, as well as to encourage other nations to aspire to do the same. Senator Ketter mentioned the illegal importing of asbestos products by certain companies, some of them Chinese, and the speed with which that was cracked down on. As a Rural Fire Service volunteer I am subject to asbestos training on an annual basis. It's always the frontline worker or the frontline emergency responder who will see indications or the possibility of the presence of asbestos. But we do have a strict asbestos importation prohibition, and the aim of that is to protect Australian workers and the community, and there is in place a strict workplace ban on asbestos.

The Australian government has implemented a comprehensive suite of initiatives to manage the challenging problem. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency has been mentioned a good deal today. It was established and is funded by the Australian government to ensure the coordinated national implementation of the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness. That plan aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres and to eradicate asbestos related diseases by coordinating the work of the state and territory governments to prioritise areas of asbestos management and awareness. We have heard examples from various speakers today as to how that is taken on. We saw references in Senator Hanson's presentation to various technologies that she believes may provide an answer. Senator Ketter has said that this has been considered, and this is something that has to be reconciled in some way. So often, we think there is one solution to this. For most problems in the world, of course, there's never just one simple solution—one silver bullet to solve these problems.

As I said, the government has a coordinated and holistic approach. The Asbestos Interdepartmental Committee was established by the Department of Jobs and Small Business and the Department of Home Affairs to 'provide strategic direction and enable effective policy and regulatory coordination in managing asbestos issues across the supply chain' that Senator Ketter spoke about. Through Safe Work Australia, the tripartite national policy agenda on work health and safety, the safe management and handling of asbestos materials in workplaces remains an ongoing priority for this government, and for the state and territory governments as well. The model work health and safety laws for which Safe Work Australia is responsible deal comprehensively with asbestos in the workplace, including through the implementation of a domestic prohibition on asbestos in the workplace—and we have certainly heard today about where that has been abused.

We were one of the highest per capita users of asbestos over many, many years. This is illustrated by the fact that we in Australia mined about 700,000 tonnes of asbestos ourselves, but we also imported an extraordinary 1½ million tonnes for use in manufacturing between 1930 and 1983. We have had people refer in their presentations to a number of ways that asbestos was used. The way it has been used and the way it is being used now has delivered a terrible legacy for Australia. We have described it as a scourge. It's a terrible legacy. It's projected that there will be approximately 19,400 new cases of mesothelioma diagnosed in Australia before the end of the century. We're also witnessing an increasing number of asbestos related diseases, likely caused by non-occupational exposure to asbestos. Between 1950 and 1970, Australia had the highest reported per capita incidence of asbestos related disease in the world.

We know the problem. We have looked back on it. We have heard the reports of the Senate Economics Reference Committee, which reported on this particular subject as recently as October of last year. But there is a national strategic plan, and that national strategic plan is in being and is being applied. There's got to be a coordinated national approach to tackling something like the scourge that is asbestos. So the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness is a strategy to build Australia's capacity to address the risks of asbestos. The plan supports coordination and common efforts across government, with a strong emphasis on facilitating information sharing. It's got six key strategies: awareness, best practice, identification, removal, research and international leadership. That really forms the basis of every awareness course that's conducted in Australia. The plan is guided by certain principles, and those principles are: precaution, evidence based decision-making, transparency, public participation and collaboration.

Phase 1 of the plan has supported the existing risk management of asbestos and complemented this by identifying evidence and information to reduce risk. It has incorporated research projects and testing of approaches to build the evidence base, and it's because of this I would be surprised if the technical people involved in this strategic plan have not considered the technology solution that Senator Hanson's offering. The second phase of the national strategic plan will be developed during this year in consultation with state and territory governments and stakeholders.

I think this is probably relevant to the point that Senator Ketter was making. In the 2018 MYEFO budget process the government more than doubled the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency funding. So possibly the point that Senator Ketter made may have been addressed before MYEFO, if I've got my timing right on this. This funding ensures ASEA can continue its important work with the states and territories on asbestos management and awareness. This demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting workers and the community from Australia's deadly asbestos legacy. It's a strategic and coordinated approach, which is essential, as I said before, to achieve an end to asbestos related disease.

The function of ASEA is asbestos safety and awareness, and it will receive additional ongoing funding of $1.7 million per year, commencing in 2018-19. ASEA's funding level will more than double from the $1.6 million set by the previous Labor government to $3.3 million per annum. The base level funding set by the previous government was considered inadequate for ASEA to function effectively. The government has now addressed this shortfall and secured the agency's future. The additional funding ensures ASEA can plan for the future and direct resources to longer term work that will achieve the government's goal of eradicating asbestos exposure and asbestos related diseases. We believe that this funding will ensure ASEA is well placed to coordinate the implementation of phase 2 of the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness with governments at all levels and is able to partner with states and territories to drive priority work under the plan.

In 2008—and I'm sure the committee looked at this—Commonwealth, state and territory governments committed to harmonising workplace health and safety legislation and regulation. They did that by 2012 through the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in OH&S. It was under this agreement that Safe Work Australia was established to assist the Australian government in handling problems such as this. It was also as part of this overall process that the federal Safety Commissioner was established as far back as 2005. That came from the Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry, which found the safety standards in the industry to be unacceptable. The federal Safety Commissioner has legislative functions related to the compliance of building materials with the performance specifications of the National Construction Code as well as for administering the Australian Government Building and Construction Workplace Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme.

The WHS Accreditation Scheme uses Commonwealth purchasing power to improve workplace health and safety in the building and construction industry by requiring head contractors seeking to undertake Commonwealth funded building work subject to certain financial thresholds to hold the Federal Safety Commissioner's workplace health and safety accreditation. There are seven detailed criteria. I won't go through those seven detailed criteria in relation to accreditation for those companies, but we should all be aware that that situation exists, that accreditation is required and that accreditation is taken seriously.

The FSC, the Federal Safety Commissioner, has the power to suspend or revoke a company's accreditation where a condition of accreditation has been breached. This is all part of the coordinated government action and is done, in the best of government ways, by an interdepartmental committee of Commonwealth agencies, which is represented by government agencies with relevant asbestos management in Australia. So the proposition that there is a simple silver-bullet solution doesn't really hold water, for the simple fact that there is an integrated and coordinated plan and that the Senate Economics References Committee has in fact looked at other technologies.

The interdepartmental committee has in fact progressed work in a range of areas, including testing and sampling. The Department of Jobs and Small Business is currently considering amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations to provide improved consistency with workplace health and safety laws. The Department of Home Affairs is developing options for changes to the offences and penalties for the unlawful import and export of asbestos detailed in customs legislation. The IDC has met with the National Association of Testing Authorities to discuss asbestos testing and sampling processes, procedures and standards. CSIRO is investigating new and emerging technologies for the detection of asbestos. At the request of the IDC, Safe Work Australia is reviewing the powers of regulators to deal with the removal and disposal of asbestos that has been illegally imported and then used in workplaces. The IDC has also considered options to strengthen offences and penalties for the illegal importation of asbestos. All of this goes to the fact that this is an incredibly complex problem which is being addressed in a coordinated manner.

Senator Ketter and a number of other senators have mentioned the unlawful asbestos imports. We have a strict asbestos importation ban to protect Australian workers and the community from asbestos. The government recognises the importance of maintaining this strict prohibition and will continue to work collaboratively with all levels of government to effectively address this issue. Australian Border Force has significantly increased its operational effort towards addressing the risk of asbestos since the organisation commenced to function on 1 July 2015, with a substantial increase in the targeting and testing of at-risk goods. Examples of implementation activities include stronger engagement with industry and affected members of the public through participation in the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency's asbestos safety and eradication summits, refined processes to address post-border incidents with state and territory regulators, exploring new technologies identified as having potential to assist with border detection, coordination of whole-of-government consultation, enhanced guidance, and increased testing of imported goods to enhance the accuracy of profiles and alerts on asbestos.

This motion that we're discussing today really comes down to: not a simple matter; not a single silver-bullet option. Government is doing excellent work in solving this, and no silver bullet exists. (Time expired)

It would be remiss of me to not contribute to this debate on Senator Hanson's motion on the issue of asbestos, particularly the national asbestos management plan and the issues around the disposal and eradication of asbestos, given my well-known long history of involvement in this issue, but, I have to say, it is a remarkable that, in contributing to this debate, I find myself in agreement with Senator Hanson. I think it would have to be one of the very few times, if not the only time, that I have done so since she arrived in this chamber.

What is clear, as I've been sitting in the chamber, listening to the senators who have contributed to the debate so far, is that a number of senators are learning about the complexities of managing and eradicating asbestos, and they're also learning about the health impacts. I appreciate their interest and the fact that, whether they are on the government side or on the crossbench, they are here to broaden their understanding of not only some of the work that has already been done but also work that needs to continue to be done in this area. Senator Ketter outlined very clearly the work that has already gone on in this place through his chairing of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into non-conforming building products and particularly the committee's interim report, which focused specifically on protecting Australians from the threat of asbestos.

I also stand here today as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease—PGARD, as it's known. It was one of the first things I set up when I started here in the Senate in 2011. That idea came from my time as a minister in the state government in Tasmania. As the minister for workplace relations and workplace safety, I was asked by the then Premier, David Bartlett, to embark on a whole-of-government strategy for the eradication and management of asbestos. It wasn't a path that Tasmania had gone down before, so it was a new policy development area. It meant doing a lot of work, firstly, in setting up a steering committee comprising a range of people with various expertise, including people from the union movement, people from the area responsible for testing asbestos, people from the building and construction industry and also, very importantly, people from the health sphere. I wanted them to be able to provide me with advice on how we would develop such a policy and how we would move forward.

The long and the short of all of that is that we came up with a number of things, one of which was an asbestos unit within the Department of Justice. That asbestos unit looked at some of the issues that Senator Hanson outlined in her motion today, but it was a precursor to what became, under then minister Bill Shorten's leadership, a national body called the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, ASEA. That looked again at having a national unit, so to speak, on how to address and deal with this terrible scourge, as Senator Molan rightly called asbestos, this deadly product.

One of the most important legacies and things I'm most proud of from my time in that role as state minister was introducing asbestos compensation legislation. Asbestos related compensation, which is a state matter, is a hotchpotch right across the country. Some states have a common-law approach; some states now have a no-fault compensation scheme, which was what I embarked on developing and which subsequently became law in Tasmania. I remember that, at the time, there was a lot of resistance from the business community, because it was going to mean a slight increase in workers compensation premiums. But, at the end of the day, it did rise above the issues of politics, as this issue should, because we were talking about the future of people's lives—people who had now contracted the disease from their time in the workplace and knew that their future was bleak because there is no cure when we talk about mesothelioma. We know, with that long latency period, which can be 20 years, 30 years or even 40 years, that that one fibre that it takes to develop an asbestos-related disease can end someone's life. And that is exactly what it has done over so many years.

Whilst compensation won't bring back their lives, in those dying days and the days leading up to them needing treatment and support from family and the medical field and changes in their home to enable them to cope and live, it was important that they were compensated. But it was also important that they were compensated because every day they went about working in a workplace without any idea that they were slowly putting themselves in a position where they could be killed by this deadly substance. Some of those workers, particularly those in Western Australia in Wittenoom, in New South Wales and right across the country, were working for a company that knew for a very, very long time, for decades, that they were putting their workers in harm's way and that they were putting their workers in a position where they were going to lose their lives. That company, of course, was James Hardie. It was an absolute disgrace. Of course, we've had documentaries, a Four Corners program and even movies about this, and we've also had a very good book written by Matt Peacock called Killer Company specifically on James Hardie and what they were doing to their workers—leaving them completely in the dark, blind to the fact that their lives were going to be shortened from being exposed to a substance that the company knew was deadly. Now we stand here in the Senate with full knowledge that asbestos is a deadly, deadly product. Yet, because of our desire to use it all those years ago in such massive amounts—more than any other OECD country; Australia used massive amounts of asbestos in a range of, I think, about 3,000 different products—it now lies in our built environment in so many different ways, and that means we do need to do something about it.

I've met some incredible people over the journey of my involvement in policy development on this issue of workplace health and safety. Tonight, Senator Molan mentioned Bernie Banton. I didn't have the privilege of meeting Bernie because he had passed away by the time I had become involved in this issue, but I have met his wife through the Bernie Banton Foundation, which she established. I also learnt a lot about Bernie's incredible stoic campaigning for justice. Of course, a person often by Bernie's side through a lot of that was Greg Combet. Greg has been an incredible shining light in exposing the nature of employers around this issue of asbestos. On top of that, there's been the AWU's Yossi Berger, an absolute walking bible of knowledge when it comes to asbestos and certainly someone I took counsel from during my time as minister in the state parliament—and I think he has continued to provide a lot of counsel for members and senators in this space. There is also someone who actually created the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and that, of course, is Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten, from day one, was incredibly committed to fighting for justice for those workers that had been exposed to asbestos, and that is why today we have the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. It is through his leadership and dedication to this issue that we have come this far and that today we can at least debate the next strategic plan.

There have been a lot of people on the ground, though, who have worked absolutely unbelievably tirelessly, day in and day out, in running support organisations right across the country. Vicki Hamilton was one of them, but there have been so many others right across this country that have provided day-to-day advice and support to victims of asbestos related disease, whether it's them needing transport to hospital for treatment, navigating the legislation in their home state in relation to compensation or just advocating so strongly about needing change here in Canberra. So I do, indeed, want to pay tribute to their ongoing dedication to fight for so many people's lives.

We are talking about a lot of people's lives. We are talking about thousands of people's lives. In fact, as many as 40,000 people will be diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease in the next 20 years. That is its long legacy. It is the long latency period, unfortunately, that asbestos has that means we'll have so many more people diagnosed. It's actually predicted that around 25,000 people will die of asbestos related diseases over the next 40 years. This is why research is so important.

I was pleased last year, with my co-chair, Russell Broadbent, to host the ANU's and the Asbestos Disease Research Institute's Associate Professor Martyn Kirk here in Parliament House. Martyn came from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the ANU. He was here to launch the ACT's final report on asbestos health studies into the health effects of living in a house with loose-fill asbestos insulation. We know that Canberra has its own legacy here with Mr Fluffy. A lot of houses have contained Mr Fluffy and a lot of work has needed to be done to protect those residents that have had those types of houses. I also introduced Professor Ken Takahashi. He has become the new director at the Asbestos Disease Research Institute. As I said, research is going to be ever-increasingly more important because, at this point in time, we don't have a cure.

There have been some remarkable breakthroughs, like a drug called Keytruda used, in the main, to treat people with melanoma, a skin cancer, but it has actually had a positive impact on people with mesothelioma. I remember Russell and me meeting with the then minister, Sussan Ley, about this issue of how we could get Keytruda listed among those drugs that could be used for the treatment of mesothelioma. It was costing something like $3,000 a treatment because there wasn't a line item for it. That is something I think Minister Greg Hunt should continue to pursue because, if there is no cure but there is some sort of drug that can provide some comfort and at least delay the onslaught of those symptoms from an asbestos related disease, we should be open minded about embracing that.

I will turn to the issue of illegal dumping, which I know Senator Hanson has found herself interested in. Illegal dumping has been going on for absolutely decades, and it's been going on right across the country. I do not think there is one state or territory that is immune to illegal dumping. Yes, I have heard it said a few times here today that this is a complex issue. Well, guess what? We're in the federal parliament and we're here to deal with complex issues. That's our job, all right? We have to deal with these complex issues. The buck stops with us. In fact, the buck stops with the government, but it stops by us dealing with these complex issues. How we are going to resolve the issue of illegal dumping is incredibly important. I know in Tasmania a lot of asbestos is dumped in our forests. It is costing us something like $200,000 a year to clean up illegal dumping. That's just in a small state like Tasmania. I can't imagine what it would be in some of the bigger states. The thing is, if we don't have enough pits to have asbestos dumped in and the cost of dumping asbestos is going to be so high, then, unfortunately, certain scurrilous individuals are going to do the wrong thing. They're going to either put it in wheelie bins or dump it illegally. So it does come back to access and to cost. These two issues need to be addressed. There are some councils in Australia that have addressed them. They've addressed them really well and they've provided vouchers to their residents. There are other council areas where there is simply nowhere to dump it and, in fact, you've got to drive for miles to find somewhere that has a purpose-built facility.

These are some of the challenges that the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency can address in its new management plan, but, as far as instructing states and instructing councils—because it gets right down to the council level—to change their policy parameters around this, the agency is going to need support and funding as a national body to be able to push this right up to the COAG level, because that's where it really needs to sit. It is going to be very difficult for the federal government, of any persuasion, to get councils and state governments to have any interest in changing what they are doing without it, I think, being part of some kind of COAG position.

Senator Ketter has already raised a range of other issues today. The recommendations from the Senate Economics References Committee's report lays it all out—it really does. There are some excellent recommendations in that report and the federal government, the Turnbull government, needs to seriously address them. At the end of the day, do we really want to create another generation or, as they call it, a third wave of asbestos disease sufferers in Australia? I hope we certainly don't. But, if we don't want to create that, then we need a government that's going to take this issue seriously and give ASEA the funds and the teeth that it needs to do its work, and we need a minister who actually has a bit of interest in this. Over the last I don't know how many years of this government, we've had, I think, three ministers, if not more, for asbestos. I do acknowledge and give some praise to Senator Abetz because, when he was Minister for Employment, he did actually commit to tackling asbestos and he did take it quite seriously indeed. But it's been pretty much a hodgepodge approach since that time, and then there was the threat of withdrawal of the funding of the agency and the question of whether the agency would continue. There's just been absolutely no commitment, and this is an issue, as I said, that has to rise above politics. It has to have the commitment of all sides in this place so that we can deal with some of the issues that Senator Hanson has decided she wants to get involved with today.

On the issue of illegal imports, for some time now—and I think it is one of the recommendations that Senator Ketter's report puts forward—we have been calling on the Australian government to push and push for the listing of chrysotile asbestos in annex III of the Rotterdam convention. What that means is that, on any import into Australia, it will have to be listed that it contains a hazardous substance called asbestos, and at the moment it simply doesn't. So, yes, we end up with cars like Great Wall and their asbestos brake pads. It's just ridiculous that there is no listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Rotterdam convention. That has to continue to be pushed by the federal government. At the same time, Border Force are given a lot of resources when it comes to drugs, as they should be, but, if they're not given the resources and put through the training to be able to identify asbestos and check these products before they come into our country, at the border level, then of course we'll find more examples of the kids' crayons and building materials and the like coming in. So more needs to be done by government and more commitment needs to be made if they're really serious about addressing asbestos in Australia.

I rise to contribute to this debate. Mesothelioma: what a terrible disease. It's amazing—as time goes on, we learn from our mistakes. Living on the farm, moving to the Inverell area back in 1979, we had these barns there where they used to hang the tobacco, back in the old tobacco-growing days, when many Italian immigrants came there. The barns would be knocked down, and the panels probably just thrown in the dump on the farm or whatever. People were ignorant, totally ignorant, of what they were actually handling at the time, and what a dangerous, dangerous product asbestos is, and all the harm, suffering and death caused by it. It is amazing. Australia was a huge user of asbestos. It was one of the biggest users of asbestos in the world until the mid-1980s. The legacy of this, of course, is here, now, and for many years in front of us, to clean it up.

This is a good topic to talk about. I think it's something that each and every one of us across the political fields here agrees is a dangerous product. It needs to be disposed of properly. What we learn about it, as time goes on, is that the more we learn, the more we need to spread that knowledge and to clean up the whole environment for future generations. To me, that's what life is about in politics; it's about the future generations. Ask yourself one question: how are we going to leave our country for those who follow us—our kids, grandchildren and those to come after that? If we can leave the country in better shape than we inherited it, we've done a pretty good job. And when I say 'leave the country in better shape', I refer to our rivers—the pollution in the rivers—and especially our soil, our topsoil, which has to grow food for millions and millions of people in the years ahead of us. We need to protect our topsoil. Sadly, that is something not enough people pay attention to. The conservationists and the green movement are always talking about trees and so on, but what about the actual soil? The soil is a great asset we have. In talking about leaving things for future generations, asbestos is no exception.

Senator Singh, I thought, spoke very well, and I agreed with many things she said. But it is a complex challenge simply getting the environment protection authorities from the three tiers of government—from local councils to state government to federal government—working together. It does take some putting together. I'm sure Minister Scullion would be well aware of that in his portfolio. You don't just pull them together, have one meeting, and it's all hunky-dory: 'Let's all be friends and get on with the job.' It doesn't work like that, sadly. But I'm proud of the fact that the government has doubled the funding for the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, ASEA, from 2018-19 onwards.

The thing is—where is all the asbestos? It is hidden behind the walls as insulation. It is hidden in the ceilings. People are probably living amongst asbestos and simply not even aware of it. I know that when I did repairs to my shearing shed years ago we bought panels—fibro. Hopefully, it didn't have asbestos in it. We put them on the sides of the shearing shed because the old ironbark slabs had deteriorated so much. But there's been too much sickness and too great a cost, both money-wise and personally, for so many people—people who've had to work with asbestos, work around that product, and, of course, who have suffered the illness and the terrible death resulting from that.

The government, through the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, ASEA, has been working on the ongoing development, coordination and implementation of the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness. The aim of the national strategic plan is to prevent exposure to airborne asbestos fibres in order to eliminate asbestos related disease in Australia. We know this is a long-term challenge, and it's important to ensure the plan is refreshed and remains relevant. The plan provides a framework within which states and territories are able to work cooperatively and independently to achieve set objectives. It is ensuring a coordinated effort across the country to reduce the deadly impact of asbestos on Australians, and will help put Australia at the forefront of international efforts to deal with asbestos. The plan joins all Australian jurisdictions to work together to develop practical long-term solutions to the asbestos problem. It uses a phased approach to work together with the ultimate aim of eliminating asbestos related disease.

Senator Singh made a good point: where do you dispose of the asbestos waste? If the local government's going to charge too much, if the pits are expensive to form, then people are simply going to junk it. Out on the road at night-time, in a gully on the side of the road, on a stock route—who knows where? Just get rid of it, throw it out wherever you are, and, of course, this causes more problems, spreads the asbestos around the countryside and makes an even more widespread and bigger mess to clean up. So we must encourage those who are going to remove the asbestos to dispose of it properly and safely.

One of the big problems we face is the do-it-yourself workers at home. They might buy an old home; it might be 80 or 100 years old. It might already have been renovated perhaps in the sixties and seventies with asbestos lining, asbestos this, asbestos that—with many materials made from asbestos—and they might think: 'Well, it's getting a bit old and tattered. The paint's worn off. We'll just get the crowbar and sledgehammer and smash it all down and throw it in the bin and drop it up at the local dump. It'll be right.' How do they know what they're dealing with? Surely, one of the problems we face is education. I've got to plead ignorance here. If you give me a panel of some building material, how do I know there's asbestos in it? This is one of the problems of educating people to be well aware of what they're dealing with at the time. When it comes to the do-it-yourself worker doing those jobs on a home renovation, it might be an 800 square metre house block that has a three-bedroom home and an old shed down the back that has been there for many years. 'We'll knock the shed down.' Do they realise what they're doing with the walls et cetera? It gets worse. When you look at Western Australia, there's a problem where they had cement tiles for the roofing for houses, many of them for many years. Now they are decaying, getting old and giving off the fibres. It's a very widespread problem.

That's why, for the plan, it's important to work together to construct the best team right across all jurisdictions to see how we can deal with this. I talked about the plan providing the framework within the states and territories so they can work together. The first phase of the plan, 2014 to 2018, focused on the conducting and disseminating of research projects and the testing of approaches to gather the evidence, supporting tools and systems to identify options that reduce the risks posed by asbestos in the built environment. Strategies were identified as a means of achieving the plan and increasing the public's awareness of the health risks of asbestos. We're doing that here today by talking about it, and, hopefully, those who are listening on radio are getting a message from that. It is something I'm not an expert on, I can tell you. I need to be educated as well. There is supporting and promoting research to learn more about the product and how we can deal with it, and improving information about the identification and location of asbestos. As I said, it's about education. There is developing best practice in all aspects of asbestos management, identifying priority areas to improve the safe removal of asbestos, working to stop asbestos imports to Australia and campaigning to achieve a worldwide ban on asbestos mining and manufacturing. Those are some very important issues about the removal of asbestos. Then, where do we deposit it once it's removed? There is the safe deposit, the safe storage and the safe dumping of the product.

Australia is widely recognised for its international leadership on asbestos management. The government is impressed by the commitment all governments have shown towards the implementation of the national strategic plan to identify the priority risks of asbestos exposure in Australia and in the community. This plan must be adhered to, put together and expanded, because it's got to be a team effort right across the nation to achieve the goal, which is to make it safer for future generations and, of course, safer for those today who have to work with it. Senator Singh said the task of all levels of government in many portfolios is not complex. It may be complex; we call it complex, but that's why we're here: to solve complex issues. All levels of government across many portfolios involve asbestos—safety, public health, planning and environment to name just a few—so it is bringing departments together to work on this very issue.

Looking at New South Wales, the following case studies from ASEA's National strategic plan for asbestos management and awareness progress report 2015-16 demonstrate best-practice initiatives to address illegal disposal practices. But here's the problem: it's very convenient to go out and do it at night, especially when you live in a rural area, as there are plenty of dirt roads et cetera and there is simply no-one about at night-time. The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority's Waste Less Recycle More initiative 'supports grant programs for local government, business, industry and the community to stimulate new investment and transform waste and recycling in New South Wales. In this case study, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service:

… used this program to identify and target hotspots of illegal dumping in two of their conservation areas. EPA funding was used to develop a strategy, gather data, clean-up dumped asbestos and install barriers, signs and surveillance cameras to deter future dumping.

But it's a big country. I'm talking about New South Wales here. There's a lot of area to watch. Surveillance cameras might be good for some areas of hotspots, but you can't have surveillance cameras all over the countryside. The report continued:

The grant funding supported the clean-up of 97 sites including over 607 tonnes of asbestos—

607 tonnes—

923 tonnes of mixed waste, 1186 tyres and 221 mattresses. Regulatory action taken resulted in 18 investigations resulting in 6 penalty notices, sites being cleaned-up by offenders and a successful court prosecution.

I mentioned the cement roofs in Western Australia. A project is currently being undertaken in Western Australia to manage asbestos cement roofs that were installed between the 1940s and 1980s throughout the state. These roofs are now 'increasingly deteriorating and coming to the end of their useful life'. To quote from the case study:

As asbestos cement roofs deteriorate they release asbestos fibres into the environment. As they age they become more brittle increasing the risk of falls and the complexity of intact sheet removal.

In other words, the older they get, the more fragile they get, and, when you try to remove them in one piece, there is more chance of them just falling apart and the fibres of course falling out. The case study continues:

Asbestos cement roofs can cause considerable contamination as a result of fires, non-compliant removal practices, and illegal dumping.

We come back to illegal dumping, which is what they are finding in Western Australia as well.

The Department of Health Western Australia is increasingly providing advice or direction to building owners recommending removal over maintenance of existing asbestos cement roofs. However, there are a number of obstacles to the safe removal and replacement of asbestos cement roofs, relating mostly to cost and a poor understanding of the legislative removal and disposal processes. The aim of the asbestos roofs project is to identify the obstacles for the removal of these products in the residential environment and investigate strategies to overcome these.

We are facing a big problem here, a big problem that's going to cost money and time and that's going to require coordination of all levels of government.

Senator Singh touched on another issue, talking about the asbestos brake pads in Chinese cars—the Great Wall, I think. This is another issue we face: imports. We need to remain vigilant to the risk of imported products containing asbestos. There's been increased focus on this issue, and the workload of the Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities Imported Materials with Asbestos Working Group and the Asbestos Interdepartmental Committee has increased as more asbestos-containing products have been identified. They have actually increased their surveillance. We have also seen more applications for permits to import asbestos-containing materials for the purpose of research, analysis or display. More requests for permits show that businesses are becoming more aware of the risk and are making efforts to ensure their products are asbestos free.

ASEA released Australia's first National Asbestos Profile at the recent Asbestos Safety and Eradication Summit. The National Asbestos Profile, NAP, supports Australia's national strategic plan and, over time, will be used to demonstrate progress made towards eliminating asbestos related diseases in Australia. I talked about the do-it-yourself builder, the home person, the renovator. They've been identified as an emerging group at risk of exposure to asbestos in the residential sector in Australia. Awareness and education are therefore key to ensuring home owners and renovators remain vigilant to the risks. The National Asbestos Profile collates a range of existing information and research data that reflect the significant impact of asbestos in Australia.

This is a big problem. I'm glad to see this motion come forward today where we can work together and highlight the dangers of asbestos, working together with the funding, knowledge, research and experience to do the best we can to protect those around it, to dispose of it, to see that it's not imported in the future and to give our children an asbestos-free Australia and world.

Debate interrupted.

I table a document relating to the order for the productions of documents concerning the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: Senator Bernardi from 19 March to 28 March 2018 for personal reasons and Senator Macdonald from 22 March to 28 March 2018 on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

The Select Committee on Red Tape was established in October 2016 to inquire into and report on the effect of restrictions and prohibitions—that's red tape—on the economy and community. It has presented interim reports on the sale, supply and taxation of alcohol, tobacco, retail, environmental assessment and approvals, and pharmacy rules. I introduced the interim report on pharmacy rules in the last session, but there was no time to speak to it, so today I will present the report in some detail.

Community pharmacies are very important in the delivery of primary health care to the Australian community. However, as the committee heard, red tape is hampering pharmacies' ability to deliver efficient and high-quality care. Red tape is also working against the interests of consumers, particularly in relation to the location rules.

Since 1990, the government has negotiated a series of five-year community pharmacy agreements with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The sixth of these was to expire on 30 June 2020, but the government has now changed this so there is no expiry. The Community Pharmacy Agreement contains the location rules, which set out the criteria for establishing premises from which pharmacists can supply pharmaceutical benefits. They determine where a pharmacy can be established. They govern whether an existing pharmacy can be expanded, contracted or relocated and prevent the establishment of a new pharmacy within a certain distance from an existing pharmacy. It's claimed that this prevents clusters of pharmacies from developing in prosperous metropolitan areas and thus somehow results in more pharmacy services in regional areas. Supposedly, this leads to more small country towns having a pharmacy. It undoubtedly results in fewer pharmacies in prosperous areas of metropolitan areas, and apparently this is meant to be a good thing.

It's interesting to consider who agrees with that. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia claims it is strongly supported by consumers. This is obviously completely untrue if we are talking about metropolitan consumers. Why would they support fewer pharmacies? It's just as inconceivable as claiming they would support fewer food outlets or clothes shops. The guild also says it's supported by business owners, who have invested $15 billion in the sector. Now, that is undoubtedly true. The Pharmacy Guild represents pharmacy owners, not consumers and not pharmacists. By preventing the establishment of competition to existing pharmacies, the location rules clearly serve the interests of pharmacy owners.

Members of the Pharmaceutical Society don't necessarily agree with the Pharmacy Guild. It represents pharmacists, not just pharmacy owners. Some of these pharmacists would obviously like to open their own businesses. The national president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, Dr Shane Jackson, told the inquiry that the effect of the pharmacy rules is an issue for some members. The Grattan Institute submitted:

Existing red tape is designed principally to protect the interests of pharmacy owners, not consumers.

It said the location rules:

… tend to protect incumbent pharmacies and restrict market entry. Stifling competition between pharmacies results in higher retail drug prices – a cost borne by patients and taxpayers. It also limits the choice of drugs for many consumers.

The institute advocated replacing the pharmacy rules:

… with simpler regulations which focus on ensuring patients have appropriate access to good-quality medicines.

The Australian Medical Association also opposed the location rules, arguing that patient outcomes would improve with specific changes that allowed pharmacies and medical centres to share premises.

The government knows all this. The review of pharmacy remuneration and regulation, also known as the King review, received few, if any, submissions approving all aspects of the pharmacy rules. Its interim report pointed out that two recent reviews have recommended the removal of these rules: they are the National Commission of Audit's 2014 report, Towards responsible government, which found that deregulating ownership and location rules could encourage competition within the sector, leading to more efficient delivery and the development of alternative retail models; and the 2015 competition policy review, or Harper review, which reported that ownership and location rules are anticompetitive and contrary to the objectives of the National Medicines Policy, limiting consumers' ability to choose where to obtain pharmacy services and suppliers' ability to meet consumer demands.

Since the King review delivered its interim report, the Productivity Commission has also published its report Shifting the dial: 5 year productivity review, which recommended changes to the community pharmacy model. In fact, since 2000 there have been seven reviews that considered the pharmacy rules. As the Grattan Institute describes it, pharmacy regulation is an area of 'policy purgatory' in which the Australian government chooses not to implement change. Report after report disappears, with the only explanation being that the pharmacy industry has far too great an influence on its own regulation.

Having said all that, there were other red-tape issues brought to the attention of the committee. One particularly resonated because it was similar to one that came up in the context of an earlier inquiry—that is, the timing of tax obligations. These can have significant implications for cash flow, particularly for small businesses like pharmacies. Although GST is not levied on pharmaceuticals, it is applied through the supply chain. Pharmacies must pay GST and then claim it back. The committee recommends the government investigate options to align the payment of goods and services tax with business practices to enable small businesses to better manage cash-flow issues. The committee made a similar recommendation in relation to small boutique distilleries, which must pay excise before being paid by customers.

The committee notes that the cost of supplying some medicines is not covered by the PBS, the RPBS or any other arrangement. It accepts that policy reasons might account for this. However, the committee does not accept that community pharmacies should be exposed to costs attributable to wholesalers which are passing on costs arising from government imposed obligations. The committee heard there is an immediate need for better digital support for the PBS and RPBS and recommends the Australian government develop a centralised electronic system for the PBS safety net, similar to the Medicare safety net. The committee heard pleas for reductions in paper based systems generally. This includes having electronic prescriptions. The government has a policy aimed at achieving this, and apparently governments and software developers are working together to expedite implementation.

The committee heard once again about problems caused by state variations in relation to the supply of pharmaceuticals and recommends the Australian government, through the Council of Australian Governments, pursue options for uniform regulation legislation. The government's 2013 deregulation agenda aimed to reduce excessive, unnecessary and complex regulation to lift productivity and boost growth. The committee supports this objective but has found that red tape continues to unnecessarily and adversely affect the efficient operation of community pharmacies to the ultimate detriment of consumers. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I seek leave to go back to document 13—the ABCC report.

Leave is granted.

I just want to indicate that we have heard that One Nation and Senator Pauline Hanson have done a deal with the government to capitulate to the government's $65 billion tax cuts in return for a thousand apprenticeships. This is an outrageous proposition. The ABCC code prohibits the trade union movement negotiating with companies to increase apprenticeships. You would get more than a thousand apprenticeships if you simply stopped that restriction on unions negotiating with employers to take on young apprentices and give them a job for the future. That is where Senator Hanson should be dealing with this issue, not by capitulating to the government. She should simply concede that what she has done is capitulate to the government after saying that she was standing up for the battlers, as she always says—but she never delivers. If she were going to stand up for the battlers, she wouldn't be capitulating to a $65 billion tax cut for big business. She wouldn't be giving business another free kick by saying that she'll give them apprenticeships and pay for them during the life of the apprenticeships.

This is just an outrageous proposition. It's simply One Nation having no understanding of the problems for young kids getting into apprenticeships. It's about One Nation using the apprenticeship system as a smokescreen for capitulating to the government—something that Senator Hanson and One Nation do all of the time. They have got no comprehension of the issues for apprentices. They have got no comprehension of the issues facing families in this country. They are an absolute fraud.

Senator Hanson is the biggest fraud that has come into this place. She stands up and argues that she's looking after the battlers, and yet she capitulates to the government at every opportunity she can take. She is a fraud, incompetent and not prepared to deal with the real issues for working families in this country. She's saying that this will give unemployed kids and kids that are drug addicts the opportunity to get an apprenticeship. That is a complete misunderstanding of the needs of industry, the commitment you've got to give to an apprenticeship and the benefits that an apprenticeship can give to a young person and to a business. Business should not be getting paid to put an apprentice on. Business should be employing apprentices to make sure the future of their company is assured and to make sure the skill base of this country is assured for the future and we can become internationally competitive. This is an absolute nonsense.

I know that there are a couple of tradespeople in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, and I know that there were problems within the One Nation party in relation to this capitulation. So what's happened is that Senator Hanson has come up with this concocted deal with the government to put on a thousand apprentices across the country and have them in rural and regional areas—the areas where apprentices are exploited mercilessly in this country. You've only got to look at what the Fair Work Ombudsman is exposing around the country. This is a thought bubble, a capitulation by Senator Hanson, a capitulation by One Nation. I would have thought that the two tradespeople in the One Nation party would have known better than to do what they have done.

This is a misuse of the apprenticeship system. The government itself is saying that it will put on 300,000 apprentices over the forward estimates. Is it an extra 1,000? Are they part of the 300,000? What checks and balances will be in there for young apprentices and small businesses in rural and regional areas to make sure that they get a contract for employment, a contract for training? This is just the worst example I have ever seen in this place of a party capitulating to the government. We've seen some big capitulations over the last decade in this place, but this is the worst example. Senator Hanson should simply say she's capitulated to the government and stop using apprentices as an excuse. This is not about apprentices; this is purely about capitulation and weakness from Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

Senator Cameron, your time has expired.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I rise to address reports that, in line with its ideology of outsourcing and job destruction, the Turnbull government is planning to select a private sector visa service provider to replace jobs currently being performed by public servants at the Department of Home Affairs. Not only is this policy a risk to Australian jobs, threatening over 100 jobs in my home state of Tasmania; it also, in my view, potentially puts at risk matters of privacy and security as well as over 2,000 jobs across the country. In the wake of so many recent data breaches and hacking scandals, it's hard to imagine that any government would consider replacing public sector jobs with a private company, but it's been reported that a tender process could begin as early as July this year. With the government already having awarded a contract to Datacom to take over the immigration call centre work, we know the direction that we're being taken in.

Mr Dutton started his new job as Minister for Home Affairs by outsourcing 250 Public Service jobs to a New Zealand company. The outsourcing of these jobs follows an ongoing dispute between the out-of-touch Turnbull government and thousands of Immigration and Border Protection employees over pay and conditions. Unfortunately it seems like the government doesn't care about the jobs of everyday Australians. Well, Labor does. Labor values the important work of public servants as well as the expertise and experience of our frontline workers in the Department of Home Affairs. We are acutely aware that all this and more is at risk if the government manages to privatise our visa-processing services.

I personally have been contacted by Tasmanian workers who are worried about their jobs being lost if the government privatises visa processing in Australia. They're worried about what this will mean for their jobs, for privacy and security and for the integrity of Australia's migration program. One constituent said that the possible privatisation:

… has the potential to see the loss of a substantial number of public service jobs, including my own and many more of my dedicated and highly skilled colleagues. My job is important to me. I proudly undertake my duties and serve the Australian community with integrity, diligence, courtesy, honesty and most importantly, a great sense of responsibility.

This constituent is right. They take pride in their work and they have a right to be concerned about it.

The Turnbull government has been notably silent on its plans for the future of visa services, but Labor took the initiative, at a recent Senate estimates hearing, to question the Department of Home Affairs about these plans. The department confirmed that the future of visa service delivery will ultimately be a decision for the Turnbull government. That's why I rise today to urge the government to be up-front and honest with the visa processing staff in the department and to reconsider any plans for the privatisation of Australia's visa processing arrangements.

The Turnbull government, because of its conservative, cost-cutting ideology, is incapable of treating Australia's public servants with the respect they deserve. Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor values the important work of Australia's public servants and the expertise and experience of our frontline workers. We'll continue to hold the government to account and ask questions about where the Turnbull government is taking us. As the CPSU said:

… when public services are privatised Australian taxpayers end up paying more and getting poorer services.

This is a matter of importance for all Australians. It's an issue that could impact the jobs of over 2,000 Australians. The Turnbull government has shown itself ready, time and again, to put the profits of private companies ahead of the jobs of ordinary Australians. It's time this government finally gets behind Australian workers.

Another issue I'd like to raise today in the adjournment debate is World Down Syndrome Day, an international event that aims to promote a better understanding of Down syndrome and to remove the stigma and the misunderstandings surrounding it. It was wonderful to have had the opportunity during World Down Syndrome Day yesterday to meet with members of the Down Syndrome Advisory Network and hear from such engaging speakers as Claire Mitchell, who spoke of her experiences living with Down syndrome. The Down Syndrome Advisory Network exists to provide advice directly to the board of Down Syndrome Australia and to help it understand the needs of people living with Down syndrome.

I was lucky enough to meet some of the members, including Ebony Beveridge, a 21-year-old from my home state of Tasmania, who represents people with Down syndrome at workshops for teachers and teaching assistants. I also met with Ursula, who took the time to come to parliament to share her experience and help raise awareness of Down syndrome. I met Kylie and her mother. Kylie attends various conferences, presenting to various audiences, and runs her own public speaking business. What I shared with so many of these people was a real excitement to be able to be in parliament to celebrate this day.

The co-convenors of the Parliamentary Friends of Disability Group, Senators Linda Reynolds and Jordon Steele-John, and I moved a motion in the Senate yesterday to celebrate this day and to note the ongoing barriers that society creates for people with disabilities to participating fully in society. The theme of this year's celebration is 'What I Bring to the Community', and this theme shows that, just like everybody in attendance yesterday, those living with Down syndrome hope to live in and contribute to the community. That's why Down Syndrome Australia ran a 21-day countdown profiling 21 people to highlight the many different ways that people with Down syndrome are involved in the community. I'd encourage everyone to go onto the Down Syndrome Australia website and have a look at these stories to learn more about the many ways that people living with Down syndrome are giving so much to their communities.

During the event yesterday, we also saw a film by CoorDown about inclusive education in our society. The film chronicled a young girl, Lea, living with Down syndrome. It showed that, despite suggestions from others that she attend a 'special school', she preferred to be treated like everybody else, attending school and working in the same way as everybody else. What this film demonstrates is that people living with Down syndrome want to participate and give back to society in the same way all Australians do. This means treating all people in the same inclusive way, hence the hashtag #IncludeUsFromTheStart. We need to welcome all students in our schooling system and ensure that every student has the chance to participate in our education system to achieve to the best of their abilities. Certainly, there may be challenges in doing this, but, as the advert so beautifully ends, in the words of Lea, 'Who says that easy is better?'

I'd like to thank Down Syndrome Australia for their work in organising this event. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their attendance and their commitment to this important cause. Most of all, I'd like to thank those who made the journey to parliament to celebrate the day yesterday. You've shown us what living with Down syndrome can mean and how important days like this are for celebrating what you bring to the community.

I rise tonight with great sadness to make some remarks about the highly esteemed, globally respected Professor David Cooper AO, who passed away last Sunday on 18 March. In my role as chairman of the parliamentary liaison group on HIV, blood borne viruses and STIs, I came to know Professor Cooper, and it was one of those cherished and trusted friendships that we in this place get to make, as our work often intersects with the lifework of great Australians.

Scientia Professor David Cooper AO was one of the first responders when the HIV epidemic reached Australia in 1986 and was also the inaugural director of the research centre that has come to be known as the Kirby Institute. The Kirby Institute is now world-renowned for its ongoing global leadership in the fight against the global HIV epidemic. The Kirby Institute recorded Professor Cooper's passing by saying this:

David's life was dedicated to the prevention, treatment and cure of HIV and other infectious diseases. These diseases disproportionately affect the world's most disadvantaged communities, and David firmly advocated health as a fundamental human right in all of his endeavours. His leadership as a clinician and researcher was extraordinary, and it is difficult to imagine our many collaborative efforts without David at the helm.

The acting dean of the University of New South Wales medical school, Professor Anthony Kelleher, said:

He contributed to the development of every therapeutic drug used in HIV. All over the world he was respected as a leader, and at home he was an insightful colleague and unparalleled mentor.

The Rabbi David Freedman gave the most powerful, gracious and inspiring tribute in honouring the great work of Professor David Cooper. I spoke to Rabbi Freedman this morning, who was pleased to allow me to share some of his remarks in the Senate this evening. The Rabbi David Freedman said:

As I embark on this tribute, I have to pause and admit that it is an impossible task to give a full account and description of a human being; his life, his experiences, his passions, ambitions, his successes and achievements in the short space of ten or fifteen minutes.

But even if one could do this with the average human being, with David Cooper it would be utterly preposterous, for David was different from the average person—there was in fact nothing average about him at all.

Since his passing, tributes have flowed from friends and colleagues alike. They speak of his humility, his energy, his passion, his leadership qualities, his courage in speaking up for those with no voice of their own, in giving hope to those whose lives appeared hopeless, and having immense courage when struck down three months ago by a cruel, relentless disease that took him from us.

Rabbi Freedman reflected on his reading of a transcript of an interview from ABC Radio National in 2015, in which David Cooper tells the interviewer that being Jewish perhaps helped him relate to his patients and the stigma they faced. As a 15-year-old medical student at the University of Sydney, the value of human life, the core belief of Judaism, was never taken for granted. Professor Cooper said:

There were a lot of Jewish kids in the medical school and I think that my values were very much formed around these young people whose parents were Holocaust survivors—we were Jews, we were different, and we were persecuted because of that. I saw the same sort of thing in the vulnerable patient populations that we dealt with.

It was when living in Boston that David became aware of the strange new disease affecting the immune systems of homosexuals. Knowing that he could be returning to a specialist position at St Vincent's Hospital, in the heart of Sydney's gay community, David Cooper began to research the disease and ensure that his hospital would be at the vanguard of caring for those who were diagnosed with this new and frightening and potentially deadly condition. As Rabbi Freedman reminded us:

One needs to remember the irrational reaction and fear that gripped society at that time. Health workers were afraid to touch HIV patients, minority groups in society were shunned; prejudice prevailed! But David and Ron Penny were the public face of reason, compassion and active support.

It was this, together with the amazing advances in the treatment of this disease, for which he received so many honours and accolades including his appointment in 2003 as an Officer of the Order of Australia.

In 2007, he was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, and in 2015 he became a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences. In 2016 he was awarded the James Cook Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales.

It's worth noting that the Senate commended Professor Cooper on his receipt of the James Cook Medal.

Rabbi Freedman also reminded us that in the Mishnah we read the astonishing statement that he who saves one life it is as if he has saved the entire planet, teaching us that each human being has intrinsic value, that each and every human being, irrespective of race, religion, gender, colour or creed, carries within them a divine spark—and it is our duty, beyond all others, to protect life, to enhance life, to enrich life. Professor David Cooper fulfilled this axiom of Jewish law hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of times, if not more. Rabbi Freedman concluded his remarks by sharing that David was a hero of his people, of our nation and, indeed, of course, of his family—comments which I concur wholeheartedly with.

There are many privileges that come to us as parliamentarians: the opportunity to work on issues that are of personal interest to us and the opportunity to represent our communities and be a voice for their concerns and for their hopes and aspirations. And, on occasion, we have the opportunity to rise to the challenge to be part of something meaningful, part of a lasting reform that liberates the lives of many. But the greatest privilege, I have to say, is to meet and join, even so fleetingly, in the journeys and contributions of some truly remarkable and inspiring people. Professor David Cooper AO is one of those people, and I'm greatly indebted to the generosity and wisdom that he shared with me over the last few years. My thoughts are with his wife, Dorrie, and her family and his many, many friends. Your loss is shared by so many, many people, not just in Australia but across the country. Vale, David Cooper.

Controversy over the private conduct of high officials is nothing new. In recent weeks a few new examples have been splashed across the headlines, have dominated the TV news and have fuelled social media. We have seen revelations about Barnaby Joyce and the resultant ban imposed by the PM on sexual relationships between ministers and their staff. After a drawn-out investigation, the head of the Australian Border Force has been sacked after a personal relationship with a person seeking employment with his agency. Across the Pacific we have the unfolding story of President Donald Trump's alleged relationship with the porn actress Stormy Daniels and the controversy about efforts to keep the lady from speaking of her experiences. It would be foolish of anyone in public life to rush to pass judgement on someone else's private affairs.

Questions that are important, and legitimate, however, arise when the private conduct of public figures, politicians or senior officials especially, may involve a conflict of interest with their public duties or their public stance on issues. Legitimate questions may also arise when a public figure takes any inappropriate measures to conceal any gap between their private life and public persona. Quite often it is not the private relationship or conduct that is the problem but the actions taken by people to conceal that relationship or conduct from others, including colleagues, employers or employees, or indeed the general public. Private conduct and relationships are the subject of legitimate inquiry when they may involve a conflict of interest or otherwise impact on workplace and professional conduct.

In this context it is with some reluctance that I raise the matter of the Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, whose personal affairs have featured in much Defence Force chatter over the past few years and more recently and very prominently in the pages of The Australian newspaper. I don't propose to go into the detail of the break-up of his marriage or his relationship with married Navy public relations official Commander Chloe Wootten. However, serious and persistent questions have been raised about the circumstances and chronology of the admiral's relationship with a junior officer, and matters related to that junior officer's promotion. Something happened that was serious enough to trigger two internal inquiries, one by a former ADF officer and another by the ADF Inspector-General. The defence department states that both these inquiries cleared the admiral of any impropriety. The minister says she is happy with those inquiries and that nothing more should be said of the matter.

Regrettably, I don't think the matter can be allowed to rest there. Admiral Griggs is the second-most senior figure in the ADF. Appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister for Defence and, indeed, the Prime Minister, he is at the top of the chain of command, often serving as acting CDF. Significantly, he is directly responsible for Defence Force personnel issues. Although there are privacy issues involved, his position and authority make it essential that his circumstances in the alleged conduct be dealt with in a more transparent manner. Two inquiries may have found him to have behaved with propriety, but we don't know the terms of reference of those inquiries. We know nothing of the conduct of those inquiries, what information was obtained or not obtained or what methodologies or principles were applied.

The reports in The Australian newspaper allege that an effort was made to conceal the early stages of the admiral's relationship with a junior officer when it should have been disclosed. It is not clear that those allegations have been properly investigated. Defence's response to media and other questions is to say nothing on account of privacy. I encountered this response myself when I sought to raise these matters, with some care, at Senate estimates hearings last month. Defence's response was that of immediately pulling down the shutters and declaring that there was nothing to see. Privacy is important, but in this case, involving as it does the conduct of a very senior officer, the position of the CDF and the Minister for Defence is simply not good enough.

There is also nothing to prevent Admiral Griggs from stepping forward and providing a full account of the circumstances. He was prepared to discuss these matters, somewhat bizarrely, with an international audience at an ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre lecture in February 2015. That unexpected account of his personal relationship caused some members of the audience to question his judgement. He should now be prepared to deal with the matters raised in The Australian newspaper in a clear and forthright way. If he were to do so, he might also clear the air with regard to the purported expedited promotion of his new wife, which has also been the subject of much rumour and speculation. Sunlight is a great disinfectant and, sooner or later, I hope Defence and/or Admiral Griggs will recognise this.

Moreover, quite apart from the precise facts of Admiral Griggs's circumstances, there are much wider and important issues about sexual and intimate relationships within the ADF chain of command. I asked CDF, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, about this at estimates last month. Specifically I asked the question:

… what are the rules in relation to a relationship between a senior officer and someone that's within their command?

The CDF replied:

… in general terms, there are policies in place in regard to people in a command chain. You don't want to have, in a squadron or on a ship or in a unit, a relationship there between a subordinate and a senior person. I won't even say the commander, but I would just say in that command chain.

The CDF couldn't cite the specific policies in question, but he was almost certainly referring to Defence instruction 35-3. That policy, signed off in June 2009, states:

A relationship which involves sexual relations or private intimacy, such as between husband and wife, life partners, boyfriend/girlfriend etc, where a superior and subordinate command or management relationship exists, is considered to be inappropriate in the workplace.

That's pretty clear. To use the more recent language employed to describe the PM's policy concerning ministers and their staff, there has been a bonk ban in place within the ADF chain of command.

That particular policy had been in place since 2009. However, what the CDF may be unaware of is that the policy was revoked last year by his very own deputy, Admiral Griggs. On 24 November 2017, last year, Admiral Griggs and acting Associate Secretary of Defence Rebecca Skinner quietly signed off on the new interim Defence instruction that explicitly cancelled the old policy of banning sexual and intimate relationships within the chain of command. This new policy removed all references to sexual relations within the command chain. Indeed, it directs ADF personnel to a complaints and alternate resolutions manual for detailed descriptions of the types of unacceptable behaviour. In respect of relationships, it states:

A conflict of interest may occur when there is a relationship that involves, or gives the appearance of involving, partiality, preferential treatment or improper use of rank or position; that is inappropriate in the workplace, irrespective of the employment type of the people involved. Disclosing or identifying and then managing the situation is essential.

Previously there was a ban, but this has been replaced by guidance that sexual relationships need to be carefully managed. Defence personnel are instructed that they have a responsibility to report potential conflicts of interest and inappropriate workplace relations. This new policy does prohibit sexual relationships between instructors and students, but there is no general ban. Admiral Griggs thus introduced a new policy in which there is no general ban on sexual or intimate relationships within the ADF chain of command.

It is remarkable that this significant change in policy was brought in without, as far as I can see, any debate within or outside the ADF. Given the bubbling controversy over his own personal circumstances, was Admiral Griggs the right person to sign off on such a policy? In my view, the new approach of Defence should have been subject to wider debate within and outside the ADF to ensure that personal policies are consistent with public expectation and the unique needs of the armed services. Or it could well be an appropriate subject for a rigorous Senate inquiry that could draw upon the wide range of submissions, evidence and case studies. One way or another, it would be preferable for these matters to be dealt with in a much more open and transparent manner. Thank you.

Tonight I rise to speak on a matter that greatly concerns me because it is an example of an overseas owned company that appears to be making every attempt to defy an Australian court judgement which in turn would have a severe impact on a large Australian employer. I do caution that the matters to which I refer remain before the court and that that process must be left to follow its course. I have been following the litigation closely as it involves Bindaree Beef, who operate an abattoir in my home town of Inverell and employ around 800 people. There are many others such as tradesmen, stock transporters and beef producers who indirectly rely on Bindaree Beef. The case also involves a large Chinese state owned corporate group.

I've had the opportunity to read two judgements of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which are published online, and there are aspects of the events disclosed therein that greatly disturb me. On 1 May 2015, Bindaree Beef entered into a three-year service kill agreement with a company called Chinatex Australia Pty Ltd. Chinatex Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinatex Corporation and part of the COFCO group of companies. COFCO's website says it has total assets equating to about $110 billion and annual revenue of around $90 billion. COFCO is China's largest food processing company. In Australia COFCO has many business interests, including its ownership of Tully Sugar in Queensland, which it acquired in 2011 for $145 million.

Under the terms of the service kill agreement, the service kill was to commence in August 2015 and end in August this year. Unfortunately, Chinatex immediately defaulted under this agreement. In May 2016, following continued breaches by Chinatex, Bindaree Beef terminated the agreement, and in June they commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This is very interesting: prior to the judgement being delivered, Chinatex Australia transferred its shares in its wholly owned Australian subsidiary called Unibale Pty Ltd to a related party corporate called Chinatex Fortune, which is a Hong Kong based company. Unibale was a registered owner of significant irrigated properties and water licences in the Moree area of north-western New South Wales, and the transfer to Chinatex Fortune was just over $38 million. I repeat: this transfer of shares occurred after the court case commenced and before the judgement was handed down.

On 24 November last year, His Honour Justice Hammerschlag found in Bindaree Beef's favour and awarded $31.35 million plus interest plus court costs. His Honour described the former managing director of Chinatex Australia, Mr Liang, as 'an intelligent, articulate and thoroughly unscrupulous man, entirely lacking in any commercial moral compass.' Then followed a series of court manoeuvres, including Chinatex filing an appeal and Bindaree Beef commencing proceedings to have the transfer of the Unibale shares voided on the basis that the transfer was an abuse of process that was intended to defraud Bindaree of the judgement debt in excess of $31 million. Bindaree also successfully obtained freezing orders against Chinatex Australia and Unibale. In February this year the court ruled that freezing orders in place against Chinatex Australia and Unibale since 1 December 2017 were to continue. His Honour Justice Ball said in relation to the Unibale shares:

There is no evidence of what happened to the $38,035,217 except that all or most of it is no longer held by Chinatex. Without more, that evidence strongly suggests that the sale of the shares was made to defraud creditors and Bindaree, in particular. Chinatex Australia and Chinatex Hong Kong are owned by the same ultimate parent, Chinatex Corporation, a company incorporated in the People’s Republic of China.

Justice Ball continued:

… there are good reasons for thinking that members of the—

Chinatex—

group have taken steps to frustrate the court's processes by taking steps to ensure that—

the original—

judgment will go unsatisfied.

Chinatex Australia's audited accounts for 2015 showed that it was dependent on the ongoing support and funding from its parent entity, Chinatex Corporation. It has not yet filed its accounts for the 2016 or 2017 years. On its website, Chinatex Corporation claims it has registered capital of what equates to about A$95 million and is a large-scale corporation under direct administration of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, and, as previously mentioned, is part of the COFCO group of companies. In notes associated with the 2015 accounts, it is revealed that Chinatex Corporation would provide financial support to allow Chinatex Australia to fulfil all obligations until September 2016. It's called a letter of support. However, Chinatex Australia submitted to the Supreme Court:

… its financial position is such that it cannot meet the judgment debt with the result that if a stay is not granted, it is likely to be placed into liquidation …

So the question must be asked if Chinatex Corporation is indeed still continuing to provide the financial support, and, if not, why not?

In summary, the Supreme Court makes an order that Chinatex Australia must pay Bindaree Beef in excess of $31 million; Chinatex Australia claims its parent Chinatex Corporation will not provide it with any funds to pay the $31-plus million; Chinatex Australia did receive $38 million in exchange for its shares in Unibale but failed to disclose to the court where it has gone—so it sold the Moree properties but failed to disclose where the money has gone; and Chinatex Corporation is owned by the Chinese state-owned COFCO, which has huge business interests in Australia, mainly in grain, sugar and other commodities. On the basis of the comments of the judges who have heard the evidence so far, it should be of great concern to all Australian companies who do business with Chinese state-owned companies.

Chinatex Australia, Chinatex Corporation and COFCO should meet their obligations. I intend to raise this matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Julie Bishop, and with the Minister for Trade, Mr Steve Ciobo, and provide briefing updates to them as matters progress. They need to know how this Australian company is being treated and that it faces the real prospect of not getting the money the Supreme Court says it is owed. I will not stand by and watch a terrific Australian company, employing over 800 people in our local town and pouring millions of dollars into the New South Wales regional economy, being treated this way. If you do business in Australia, then you must act as a good corporate citizen.

Senate adjourned at 18:53