I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

As I was saying last night, the government is increasing transparency for students around admission requirements and course cut-offs. We are working to give students better information about their choices. We are funding rural and regional hubs and regional scholarships, and we're having Universities Australia and Professions Australia work together to improve arrangements for student work placements. We are not increasing student fees. We do, however, think that we should hold universities to account for student outcomes, given the significant taxpayer funds they receive—something Labor also opposes. We also think that universities, like non-university providers, should not be able to charge students whatever they like because taxpayers and students will pick up the tab irrespective of how inefficient they are. Providers need to think of the product and the service they are providing students for the significant taxpayer investment they receive.

The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 will set a new schedule of repayment thresholds for HELP from 1 July 2018 with a lower minimum repayment threshold of $45,000 at a one per cent repayment rate—up from $42,000 proposed in last year's budget—and with smaller incremental rises in thresholds and repayment rates, up to a top threshold of $131,989, at which 10 per cent of income is repayable. It will align the indexation of the repayment thresholds to the consumer price index. From 1 July 2019, it will bring repayment thresholds for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, managed by the Social Services portfolio, into line with HELP repayment thresholds and make corresponding changes to the order of repayment of student loans. It will also introduce a refreshable, new combined loan limit on how much students can borrow under HELP to cover their tuition fees. The combined limit is $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses and $104,440 for other students. We heard and read in the media today about the importance of that, given that some 'serial students', as I think the minister has categorised them, have racked up debts large enough to pay for an apartment, let alone higher education. While the loan limit is not new, it will now apply to Commonwealth supported students borrowing through HECS-HELP as well as fee-paying students accessing FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP and the VET Student Loans scheme.

HELP lending has grown rapidly, with the expansion of the demand driven system. The amount accessed for HELP loans has increased from just $3 billion in 2009 to $7 billion in 2016. The Turnbull government shut down Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP loan scheme at the end of 2016 and replaced it with the VET Student Loans scheme. This is a much more tightly controlled scheme with caps on tuition accounts and extensive safeguards against reporting by unethical providers. The fiscal challenge for the government is that HELP repayments have not kept pace with HELP lending growth. From 2010-11 to 2016-17, the level of new debt not expected to be repaid increased from 16 per cent to 25 per cent. It is no longer possible to ignore the long-term burden of this debt on the taxpayer.

Schedule 1 of the bill proposes a new set of repayment thresholds commencing from 1 July this year. There is a new minimum repayment income of $45,000 at which one per cent of income is repayable, amounting to around $8.65 per week. The second threshold is $51,957 with a two per cent repayment rate, which would otherwise be the first threshold rate on 1 July this year. Each progressive threshold increases by six per cent income amounts and by half a per cent increments in repayment rates, which smooths the repayment obligations. Importantly, this new schedule of thresholds will also reduce incentive for debtors to 'cluster' below thresholds to avoid repayments as they do now. This came out very clearly in the Senate inquiry. There are increased repayment rates for those earning the highest incomes, who are best placed to repay their debts sooner, with those earning $131,989 or more paying at 10 per cent of their income, as I said earlier.

From 2019–20, the revised HELP thresholds will also apply to SFSS debts under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. Currently, these debts are repaid concurrently with HELP debts but according to a subset of just three thresholds. To improve rates of repayment of SFSS debts, and to achieve consistency in debt administration, the current three-tier threshold approach applied to SFSS repayments will be replaced with the full range of HELP thresholds. There will be a transitional year in 2018-19 that maintains the three-tier threshold arrangement, while systems changes are implemented, and to allow these debtors additional time for transition.

Schedule 1 of the bill also implements new indexation arrangements for the HELP repayment thresholds, which are currently indexed according to average weekly earnings. For a number of years now, the HELP repayment thresholds have been rising relative to earnings. The higher growth in AWE, average weekly earnings, has meant that people have dropped from a higher repayment threshold to a lower one, or have dropped out of the repayment stream altogether as the thresholds rise faster than their income growth. This bill provides that the minimum and all subsequent thresholds will instead be indexed to the consumer price index. This will ensure repayment requirements are adjusted in line with the cost of living. It also streamlines indexation factors used throughout the Higher Education Support Act 2003, as all amounts will be indexed in the same way.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the order of repayment of student loan debts by loan type. Currently, student debts under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973 are repaid concurrently with HELP debts. I realise I have repeated myself there, so please excuse me.

Schedule 3 of the bill provides for the expansion of the loan limit to all HELP loans for which students can defer their tuition fees but makes it replenishable. The Senate committee inquiry which I chaired received evidence that a replenishable loans cap was preferable to a lifetime limit, and that was the recommendation to the government from the majority report of the committee. I'm pleased that the government has accepted that amendment, which it introduced in the House of Representatives and which was subsequently passed.

The new $150,000 loan limit for students undertaking medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses, as defined in the act, is an increase on the estimated current FEE-HELP limit of $130,552 for 2019. Students in these courses who had previously reached their FEE-HELP limit will, from 2019, have access to additional funds up to the new $150,000 limit. Apart from annual indexation increases, the loan limit applying to students in other courses remains the same, with a base amount of $104,440 in 2019. The caps will be increased in 2019, but new replenishable combined loans caps arrangements will not start until 2020.

The measures in this bill are fair. They are modest but, over the longer term, they will ensure that the world-class income-contingent loans program remains sustainable for future generations of students and taxpayers. We have a system that is the envy of the world, and Professor Bruce Chapman is a man in demand around the globe as others seek to emulate the system that we have. Australian government funding is now at record levels, and it is important that we continue to ensure that Australians from all walks of life, irrespective of their background or financial means, can continue to access high-quality tertiary education if they have the aptitude and the application to succeed. That's why I, like my colleagues across the government, want to ensure we keep these opportunities open to future generations.

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Watt to adjourn the debate be agreed to.

In making a contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 I want to welcome the government's attention to the importance of reform in the higher education sector. I understand that this bill goes some way to reforming the HECS and FEE-HELP schemes, but there is a broader discussion and debate that we need to have in this place about the benefits of university education for a number of students. I recognise also that we've had the vocational education and training scheme, and there have been some significant reforms in that nature.

Our university system has become almost effectively a degree mill. That concerns me because there are many students who have the expectation placed upon them by society, their schools, their parents or themselves to get a degree from a university which doesn't equip them with a financially valuable skill when they graduate, some years down the track, indoctrinated in some respects by the university ethos and kudos, but they have a higher education scheme bill and are left pursuing rather menial tasks that are completely outside their training and education. That benefits no-one. The government, the public assume, by virtue of the fact that they fund it, will be accruing tens of billions of dollars worth of higher education debt, but much of it won't be repaid. As much as 25 per cent in some instances won't be repaid. We're talking about a significant amount of money—$15 billion, $16 billion or $20 billion over the next 10 years will never be repaid.

So I congratulate the government on their attempts at redressing some of the imbalances in the scheme, because, if you don't recognise that there's a problem and you don't try and fix it, you're never going to have a hope of improving the current situation. University education is not servicing all our students and our younger people as effectively as it should. Postgraduate outcomes are critically important. Meaningful reforms in this sector should incorporate a report and a very frank disclosure about how many graduates from a particular university, in a particular discipline, have obtained jobs within a certain time frame of graduating from that institution. It would produce some accountability. It would mean that universities don't just pick the cheapest degree to provide—let's say it's a law degree, for argument's sake—and graduate hundreds of students who all expect a glittering legal career and are unable to find work in that sector. That is but one example. We have numerous other examples in the sociology and social studies space. They have very little prospect of gaining meaningful employment outside of a tiny little cabal, which is not really adding to the productive nature of our society.

These things may be contentious. I don't think they are. I think many parents recognise it as common sense, and I know that many graduates lament the fact they have incurred a rather large and substantial debt and yet have no real meaningful employment prospects enhanced as a result of it.

There's also another gratuitous imbalance in the system, which I will be moving an amendment seeking to reform. That applies to the four private universities in this country: Bond University in Queensland, Torrens University in South Australia, Notre Dame University in Western Australia and New South Wales, and the University of Divinity, which is based in Melbourne. These four privately funded institutions not only don't benefit from taxpayer subsidies for each enrolment; the students who choose to go to these institutions are penalised for doing so. They're penalised with no real justification. The penalties are quite significant. Effectively, what it means is that, if they are accessing HELP fees to the tune of say $60,000 in order to get their educational qualification, the government slugs them with a 25 per cent loading on those fees simply because they've chosen not to pursue a publicly funded university place.

I understand this was introduced in around 2006 by the Howard government. In going back to understand why, I found very little rationale or explanation other than it was the vibe at the time that this should take place. Since then, I've had conversations with a number of individuals about it, and the rationale has moved down the path to, 'These are going to be accumulating higher HECS debts for individuals that are attending them'—HECS is my terminology; it's HELP and HECS now—'by virtue of the fact they're more expensive to go to, so the government will be financing a larger loan, so there should be a penalty.' This is a nonsensical argument, because it doesn't take into account the subsidies that go into universities already. It doesn't account for the fact that, for example, in Bond University a student can get through their degree in two years because they have an accelerated program that the student, who has learnt a financially valuable skill—I note in yesterday's Australian Financial Review that the private universities had higher satisfaction and better outcomes for job placement than most others—they will get into the workforce at an earlier stage and they will begin to be able to repay their debt at a later stage.

As for the concept that the fees, and hence the borrowings, attached to private institutions are somewhat higher, yes, the fees are higher, because there are no subsidies taking place there. There's not a $20,000- or $30,000-per-student subsidy that has been injected into the university to maintain the sandstone. These are privately funded institutions.

The government, might I also say, charges the interest rate that it determines applies to all student loans, irrespective of the amount. We know from media reports as well that there are students out there who have obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in HECS debt and HELP debt by becoming perpetual students, and that, I'm sure, doesn't pass the commonsense test. What does pass the commonsense test, though, is for the government to effectively introduce a cap on HECS and slash outstanding HECS and HELP debt of, I think, $104,000, which is in this bill. It also entirely negates the justification for this loading on private universities. The loading on private university students was justified, as I said, because the fees they were going to be accumulating would be higher. Well, in the end, the only amount of borrowing that a student can undertake at any single time, with one or two exemptions—we understand that—is around $104,000. Whether you pay $60,000, $80,000 or $90,000 for your degree, or whether you do two degrees, whatever it is, the most you can get is $104,000 outside of the medical sciences. I have no dramas about a loading, perhaps, for private institutions in medical sciences. I don't think it should exist, but, if a degree at Bond University in medicine could cost upwards of $500,000, one has to question whether the taxpayer should be on the hook for that. That is a decision to be made. But the principle is the same. By capping the fees, you undermine the very argument for a 25 per cent loading.

In the interests of full disclosure, my son is a scholar at Bond University. This contribution to the debate is not driven by self-interest at all, apart from the fact that I pay his fees there. He's not using HELP or accessing HECS because we're very fortunate that there's no need for him to. But it was his enrolment there, the engagement with it and the discussions I had with him about this that marked the inequity of the system.

There is an attractiveness about the private university system for many students. I've talked about the accelerated education so you can actually do a degree in two years. You do three semesters per year, you have minimal breaks between them and there are three 14-week semesters rather than two 14-week semesters or thereabouts. I'm decidedly impressed with the commercial nature of it. They explore a great many things, but everything is oriented towards practical, real-world skills in the area in which they will graduate. If that is in law, they're practising their mooting skills, discussing real-life cases or assisting in particular areas. Everything I've learned from my son's explanations to me demonstrates that there is a truly valuable skill that is coming down the pipeline, rather than just theoretical knowledge—which has its place in higher education, in research and academia, but that's not what he was seeking from a university degree.

I understand it's the same at Torrens University. This is not an ideological bent. For those on the other side of the chamber who don't share my conservative leanings or perhaps my sense of fiscal responsibility, I make the point that Torrens University in South Australia is part of a global network of universities which, I think, was launched and certainly celebrated by no less a left-winger, if I can put it like that, than Bill Clinton.

Private universities have their place. They are just another option for children and students in our country to make a decision about, and I don't think they should be penalised by government simply for opting into a system that is not state sanctioned or state run. I've been on the record many times as saying that I think the university system is becoming a bit more of a closed shop, where freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of ideas and the battle of ideas are no longer as relevant as they once were. It seems that few are willing to defend in this space what we have always tolerated or accepted. They're just students. They have differing views. But now we see students who were campaigning for the 'no' campaign being attacked and vilified simply for having that view. We have seen pro-life organisations on campus. We have seen pro-conservative organisations on campus. We've seen people penalised—and I just spoke about it in my podcast today—

A podcast?

Yes, Senator Hanson-Young. You can tune in actually.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Yes, you can. You can go to iTunes—I'll just make that point—and look for the Weekly Dose of Common Sense. It's entirely free and commercial free. The Greens do cop a bagging on it every single week. Senator McKim features a lot. Senator Hanson-Young, of course, is very unpopular with my listeners, so we mention her quite a lot. But I digress.

We have a circumstance where places like Curtin University—it was reported to me today—are penalising students for using gender-specific pronouns. They're not bringing those sorts of things in. It is like an indoctrination of children. I think parents and all students need to be able to have a choice about where they want to go in that respect.

In the end, I welcome the opportunity that every Australian has to enter into a competitive decision with respect to the university that they choose to attend. I also welcome the fact that they may choose not to attend university. But what I will be proposing—and I will be moving this amendment in the committee stage and I will look for the support of the chamber—is to remove that impediment, that barrier, that tariff, if you like, for those children who do choose to attend a private institution who then seek to avail themselves of what many in this place celebrate as the opportunity that should be provided to every student, and that is accessing funds in order to finance their degree in an advantageous manner. We've accepted, rightly or wrongly, that a very low-interest rate loan, effectively a market-neutral loan, repaid out of future earnings is the way forward and is an equitable measure for people to finance their tertiary education and studies. Applying a 25 per cent loading on top of that, plus the interest, I do not think is in anyone's best interest.

More specifically about this bill, I do agree that lowering the threshold at which repayments are meant to be made is very important. If it were left to me, I would suggest that one per cent of income is probably not enough. I would prefer, of course, to lower taxes across the board for everyone and then expect people to make a higher repayment schedule as they get into the earnings market. I make the point that, in New Zealand, about 10 per cent of income is quarantined to pay for university education, from the very first dollar earned or thereabouts. It's much the same in many other places around the world. We are not reinventing the wheel here. I'm just trying to make it fairer and more reasonable and balanced, mindful of the new university environment that is springing up around the country. I think competition in this space and options for people are very important, and government should facilitate that freedom of choice, without imposing an arbitrary penalty on people, which has, from my research, very little justification for being.

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. Labor opposes this bill. It's an unfair piece of legislation. This MYEFO package of cuts is the government's fourth attempt since coming to office to cut universities and make students pay more. At last year's budget, they tried to make students start repaying their HELP debt when they started earning as little as $42,000. Now they're proposing a new rate of $45,000. It's still too low.

Labor believe the current repayment rate is about right. We don't want to make students repay their debts when they are starting a career, saving for a house or trying to start a family. We know that higher student debt is a genuine barrier to study for low-SES and disadvantaged students. We should be doing all we can to increase participation in higher education and not making it harder. Experts warn that, if Australia does not boost participation in postsecondary education, we risk being left behind the rest of the world. Indeed, Universities Australia Chief Executive, Belinda Robinson, said:

Universities will be moving resources around, they'll be looking at other programs they can perhaps close down, campuses they can close … anything they can do to hold on for 12 months. There will be adverse consequences.

In a time of significant economic transition, we should be investing in our people and not making it harder to get a university qualification. It's pretty clear that the government has only ever had one plan for higher education: cut and make students pay more. Australian students already make the sixth-highest contribution in the OECD to the cost of their degrees, but the Liberals can't help themselves. They have consistently tried to make students pay more. Why? All to pay for their $80 billion tax cut. They've even given themselves a $7,000 tax cut. We've seen it in schools: a $17 billion cut. We've seen it with vocational education and training: nearly $3 billion cut. And more than 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships have been lost since the Liberals came to office. Again, we've seen it with the universities: a $2.2 billion cut.

I'd like to take this opportunity to share a story about the harsh reality of the impacts of these cuts. One of my constituents left the Territory to move to Canberra to study at the Australian National University. This is just one example of many. This student held an undergraduate degree and was looking to study Indonesian through ANU's then Diploma of Languages program. Having spent Christmas with their friends and family in Darwin, the student moved their entire life to the ACT to pursue this course. Upon realising the impacts of the MYEFO cuts, ANU sent the following email to aspiring language students:

Dear Student, I refer to your application for the Diploma of Languages. I regret to advise you that the Diploma of Languages will no longer be available for commencement in 2018 and your application has been withdrawn. This is owing to a recent notification, in December 2017, from the Commonwealth that there will no longer be any Commonwealth Supported Places available for the Diploma of Languages at ANU. You may want to consider studying language courses at the ANU on a Non-award basis or look at what other options are available to you through Open Universities Australia.

In other words, if you've got enough money to fund your language diploma yourself, then, they'd be happy to take them on. Understandably, the student was devastated. After they had moved their entire life from the Territory to the south, a move which came at a massive personal and financial cost, the government has basically said, 'You moved your whole life to pursue your dreams, but, because we're going back on our word, here's an online alternative.' This action by the Turnbull government is completely unacceptable. It is unjust and unfair.

This brings me to my next point. These cuts to universities damage the future prosperity of our nation as a whole. Cuts to courses like language diplomas restrict our ability to establish business and career opportunities for our students. They restrict our nation's ability to grow and they diminish our influence in our region. Indonesia is Australia's ninth-largest trading partner. Restricting the next generation's ability to communicate with one of our largest trading partners is simply baffling. The Northern Territory stands to be one of the hardest hit by the Turnbull government's cuts to universities. Indeed, CDU vice-chancellor Simon Maddocks has said that small, young universities such as CDU would be disproportionately affected by the freeze, as they lacked budgets big enough to absorb the cut to revenue. Only last week, Professor Maddocks was quoted in NT News as saying:

'If revenue is going down and costs going up, you can't just keep doing what you're doing …

We will inevitably have to review our capacity to sustain everything we've been doing because you can't keep paying out more and not get the revenue in.'

The university was 'only just financially viable' now, he said.

'We all understand the Government has savings to find but education is a significant pillar to the future of the country. High-performing countries invest in quality education systems …

I agree wholeheartedly. If we are to continue to develop, build and grow as a nation, we must ensure that higher education is affordable and accessible no matter where you live in this country.

If we look at the data from this government's much-bungled census, it's obvious that cuts to universities will only restrict—certainly in the Northern Territory—people's ability to further their careers and improve their quality of life. The 2016 census revealed that only 17.1 per cent of Territorians have a bachelor degree or higher. Compare that with the national average of 22 per cent. That statistic should be an indication that the Territory needs more investment in higher education, not less. These funding cuts have left the people of the Northern Territory in a dire situation.

When Labor first uncapped places, there were 484 more university places for students in the seat of Lingiari. That was for 2008 to 2016. Under Labor's new policy we'll see around 400 more students in Lingiari on their way to university. When Labor first uncapped places in the seat of Solomon, which covers Darwin and much of Palmerston, there were 649 more places for students at university for 2008 to 2016. That's a total of 3,207 students in the Northern Territory over eight years. Now, compare that to the Liberals 2,140 projected number of students under their unfair cuts to university placements between the years of 2020 and 2032—no growth there; no future there.

Labor delivers real reform to higher education in this country. Under Labor's new policy, we'll see around 831 more students in Solomon on their way to university. Certainly, when we were last in government, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We opened the door to university to 190,000 more Australians, many of whom were the first in their family to go to university. But under this government, with this latest round of cuts, that door is being slammed tightly shut.

I rise today to speak against the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. First, let's look at what this bill does. It amends the Higher Education Support Act to provide a new minimum repayment income of $44,999. In plain English what that means is that, where previously we had a threshold of somewhere around $53,000, the threshold for repaying a HECS debt has been dropped by close to $8,000. But what does it mean in the real world? It means that when a university graduate is earning about 700 bucks a week, taking that home, they're going to be expected to start paying back their HECS debt. Previously, they started paying back their HECS debt once they were earning more than 700 bucks a week. Now the threshold has been dropped. Let's try and translate what that means for people in the real world. If you're a young person taking home about $700 a week, let's face it, it's not a goldmine. Once you've paid your rent and energy bills, and paid for your groceries, shopping needs and transport needs, there's very little left to spend on anything else.

Put that in the context of what else this government is doing. We were here last week. This is a government that gave a whopping great big tax cut to people earning over $200,000. If you're earning $200,000 or more, you get an extra $11,000 in your back pocket. Someone on $200,000, $300,000, $500,000, $1 million or $2 million gets an extra $11,000 in their pocket. Yet the government is saying to a young person who has just graduated from university, 'We're going to make life harder for you. We're going to make life harder for people on Newstart. We're going to condemn you to a life of poverty. Indeed, we're going to make it worse than that. We're going to come after you. We're going to allege that you have debts you haven't repaid and in many instances we're going to make your life miserable.' Look at what they're doing in health care, with increasing out-of-pocket costs and the freeze on Medicare. 'We're going to make life harder for people with chronic illnesses. But we're going to make life easier for people who are already earning many hundreds of thousands of dollars.'

It is a reflection of the priorities of this government. It is no secret that young people are getting royally screwed over by this older generation of LNP politicians. This bill is just one of many examples of a government that is intent on making life harder for young people. Just have a look at the last budget. What did we see in the area of housing, which is one of the great areas of intergenerational inequity that's emerged in our country? We saw nothing. What did we see in terms of addressing insecure work for young people? Again, nothing. Did we see a rise in the youth allowance? No. What did we see to make child care more affordable for young parents? Again, nothing. When it comes to climate change, 'the great moral challenge' of our time, as it was once described by a former prime minister, it was not even mentioned in the recent budget. There is nothing to stop the extinction crisis, or the crisis on the Murray River or the Great Barrier Reef.

This government is presiding over one of the greatest acts of intergenerational theft ever seen in an Australian parliament. Look at what happens to that young person who's now being to forced to repay their HECS debt when they're earning less than they were previously. They're expected to save for their first home. But of course we know that housing prices have increased exponentially over recent years. We know that many young people are locked out of the property market because of skyrocketing property prices, all because they're competing against not people buying their first home but investors buying their third, fourth or fifth home. That's who they're competing against. So is it any wonder that as a young person in this country you would be looking right now at members of the Liberal and National parties and saying to them, 'You had it pretty good and you're making life tough for us.' This is a rigged system that young people are entering into now, where investors who are buying multiple properties get huge tax breaks, yet somebody who's aspiring to buy their first home gets almost nothing.

It is time we started to do something about the young people who are going to inherit many of the consequences of decisions made by this parliament. We're seeing a generation of politicians who enjoyed free education, free health care and affordable housing, who were able to pollute the planet for free with no consequences, now saying to young people in this country, 'We had it pretty good, but we're pulling the drawbridge up behind us and you need to clean it up. You need to fix up the mess that we've created.' Right now they're not only asking young people to pay for something they never had to pay for but also condemning young people to a life of struggle because of the decisions that are being made in this parliament.

We have some very important choices to make. We can recognise that investing in our young people, in the education of the generations that come after us, is an investment in our own country, an investment in the foundations of a decent society and an investment in the prosperity of current and future Australians—the teachers of tomorrow, the nurses of tomorrow, the doctors of tomorrow, the engineers of tomorrow. We can choose to make their life harder or what we can recognise is that we all benefit when we have a well-funded tertiary education sector. We can recognise that those young people who come after us shouldn't be condemned to a life that is made more difficult than the life that we enjoyed. Indeed, one of the very markers of human progress is to look at our young people and say, 'Your life will be easier than the life that we live right now.' We're reversing that trend in this parliament through these acts of intergenerational theft. Look at the housing market, climate, energy policy and, of course, now this retrograde step when it comes to making life more difficult for people who are pursuing tertiary education.

It's time for governments to end this act of intergenerational theft. It's time for governments to stop acting in the interests of the rich and powerful, of corporate Australia. The government should be dropping its plan for corporate tax cuts. It should recognise that what this parliament did last week, when you look at what it's doing today through these changes to the HECS system, is making Australia a less egalitarian, a more unfair and a less caring society. We are here with a duty to act not just for the interests of people who put us here but also for the interests of those generations that follow. And the passage of this bill is emblematic of a government that cares more about its mates at the big end of town than it does about the generations that will follow us.

I'm always very happy to see young people go to university, succeed and get ahead in their careers. I'm happy for them personally. The other reason I'm happy is that university graduates and undergraduates form a big part—not an entire part but a big part—of the Young Liberal Movement around Australia and in my home state of Queensland and they do a wonderful job. Indeed, as undergraduates, they've taken a real interest in democracy in many universities in Queensland. It is the YLMP who've actually taken over the student advancement leagues in the university—some call it student politics. They do a wonderful job, and I'm delighted for them that the taxpayers are able to send them to university and then, through Labor's HECS, pay it back, and I think that's only very fair.

I wasn't bright enough to go to university and, in those days, you needed a Commonwealth scholarship. My parents weren't wealthy enough to send me to university, so I started work as an articled clerk, working eight hours a day, and then studied externally through the University of Queensland to get my solicitor's qualifications. Can I remind Senator Di Natale and most of the other senators—I say 'most' because I suspect Senator Sterle and a couple of others, like me, never had the opportunity to go to university—as they rail on about asking students to pay back the taxpayers for their education, that the people who are paying for their education are, in many cases, not people who will ever go to university. There are a lot of young people who, for various reasons, cannot get into university and go into the workforce. They start earning a fairly meagre wage but they start paying tax, so the likes—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. The members on the crossbench, the minor parties and the opposition, you have been heard in silence. Under standing order 197, you will hear Senator Macdonald in silence.

These young people leave school, go straight into work, get a meagre wage, often not a very good wage, and start paying their tax so the likes of Senator McKim and Senator Di Natale can go to university. I begrudge no doctor whatever they earn. Having recently been through the hospital system, I have the greatest admiration for doctors and nurses. But, if Senator Di Natale were any sort of a doctor, he would have, if he had chosen to, been making a small fortune in that profession—and good on him! But it's only fair to the other Australians who paid their taxes for Senator Di Natale's, Senator McKim's and Senator Watt's educations that they should pay it back under Labor's HECS scheme.

I have a niece who left school and started as an apprentice hairdresser. She happily did that; she didn't want to go to university. She's a very good hairdresser. She did her apprenticeship, again, on very meagre wages, but paying tax so that the likes of Senator McKim could go to university. She paid that tax and now she's become a hairdresser, earning a bit more and paying more tax. I think that when we have these debates it's important to understand that young people are not the only ones at university. In the committee stage I will ask the minister for these statistics, but I would guess that there are more young people leaving school who don't go to university than those who do. These senators rail on about university education. As I said, I'm a great supporter of young people going to university; they do a wonderful job in society. Again, I mention what a great job the YLNP, the Young Liberal National Party in Queensland, do, not just in student politics and not just in contributing their arguments but in helping people like me and the Liberal National Party in Queensland to devise policies that keep young people in mind.

I won't delay the Senate much more on this particular bill, but I do ask senators that when they carry on, as we hear Senator Di Natale carrying on, to remember that there are many young Australians who do not have the opportunity they had of going to university. They've paid their taxes, happily, and they would happily pay for the likes of Senator McKim and Senator Di Natale to go to university. But we have to bear in mind the contribution they make, and the fairness, I might say, of Labor's Higher Education Contribution Scheme of a decade or so ago. I think that's fair. I do ask that when senators are debating higher education they keep in mind that there are many young people, who, for various reasons, never have the opportunity of participating in higher education.

It's always a pleasure to follow Senator Macdonald in a debate. I'm sure that I'm not the only member of this chamber, or the outside world, who has noticed that every single speech he gives at the moment is directed at the Young LNP. I wonder if that could be because of his preselection being up for debate right now and his dependence on the Young LNP for those votes.

Of course, he spends the rest of his time in this chamber consistently voting for measures that hurt young people, including the bill that we are discussing. But—oh!—will he use this chamber to grovel to the people who will determine his preselection. We can only assume that other Queensland LNP senators are worried about him and are giving him every opportunity to stay in this chamber so that he can be the first senator in this chamber to reach the age of 80 for some period of time. From my point of view, long may his reign he continue, because every time he gets on his feet I can hear the Labor primary vote going up! So I very much welcome Senator Macdonald's participations in these debates.

On a more serious note, I do rise, as other Labor speakers have done, to oppose this Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, which is just the latest attempt by this LNP government to again hurt the interests of young people. What this bill is about, more than anything, is putting more and more of the cost of university education onto young people, or onto those who undertake higher education, and forcing them to pay it back at a much earlier stage.

If there was a key point to Senator Macdonald's speech—other than, 'Please Young LNP, vote for me in the forthcoming preselection'—it was that we shouldn't be asking people who don't have the opportunity to go through university to shoulder the burden of paying for that university. I'm disappointed to hear Senator Macdonald have that attitude. I hope that's not an attitude that is reflected among other speakers on the government side in this debate, because many of us who have had the good fortune to attend university, like me, do not come from families of great privilege but come from families who didn't themselves have the opportunity to attend university straight out of school and did exactly what Senator Macdonald talked about and put themselves through work or night school.

In some cases they did have an opportunity to attend a university at a later stage of life. But I know many people who haven't had an opportunity to go to university and who do not begrudge for one moment that opportunity being given to other people. In some cases it is their own children, or their nephews and nieces. In some cases it is the opportunity for their spouses to go to university later in life. People who go to university do not begrudge paying a contribution through the taxation system for someone to do an apprenticeship to become a hairdresser, an electrician or a chef, because that is something where a taxpayer gives people an opportunity to get ahead in life.

If there is a dividing line between Labor senators and those from the Liberal and National parties, on the other side of this chamber, it is whether we believe that we actually are all about an individual or about a greater society and a greater community. We on the Labor side will always argue that we're not only here to advantage individuals' interests; we're also here to advantage the community overall. The higher education system, along with other aspects of our education system—TAFE, training, work experience, all those opportunities—is about giving young people, but also those who need to retrain later in their career, an opportunity to get ahead.

I'm currently chairing a Senate inquiry looking at the future of work. There is a big debate that is going on in our community, and we are looking at the fact that, as automation comes online, as we get greater technology coming into the workplace, there are going to be more and more people whose jobs are disrupted and, in some cases, eliminated. Without giving away key findings of that report, which is yet to be tabled in this chamber, it is very clear from the evidence we've received that more and more Australians, regardless of their background, are going to need retraining and upskilling to be able to simply get a job or retain a job in the new and emerging world of work that we have.

Measures like this higher education bill the government is trying to pass not only disadvantage younger people who are looking to undertake university studies straight out of school; they're also going to impact the many people, and the growing number of people, who will need to retrain from their previous occupation simply to have a job into the future.

So I ask Senator Macdonald and other Liberal senators to just reflect on the fact that, although they might like to come in here and play a bit of class warfare and try to argue that they are on the side of battlers who don't ever have the opportunity to go to university and who shouldn't have to pay for those who do, the fact is that we all have an interest in having a highly educated community, whether it be people educated through universities, TAFEs, apprenticeships or other forms of education and training that people obtain on the job. That is not only in the interests of the individual who is getting that education and training; it is also in the interests of our entire community to make sure that we are preparing people for the new world of work, which is increasingly going to require higher levels of skill and knowledge, and that's not what this bill is doing. What this bill is doing is actually putting more of burden on students to pay for their own education.

I have never objected to the idea of students making a contribution to their own education. Going back to student politics days, it wasn't always a popular opinion on the left-hand side of politics that students should make some personal contribution to their education, but I truly believe that, where we've got to at the moment—with the fees we're asking students to pay at the early stages of their career and with the requirement to repay those loans that they take out to undertake those studies—is a disincentive for poorer and working-class kids to have the opportunity to go through a university education.

Senator Macdonald and others might think that they are defending the interests of working-class and poorer people in supporting these kinds of measures, but what they are actually doing is taking university back to the pre-Whitlam days, when it was the preserve of rich kids only. If we're not careful, we're going to discourage kids from poorer and working-class backgrounds from undertaking university studies, even if they get the marks at school that would enable them to do so.

Specifically this bill will make students start repaying their higher education loans once they hit an income level of $45,000, well below average weekly earnings, at the very time when new graduates, if they are younger people, are looking at trying to save up for a house deposit, which we know is becoming harder still as a result of this government's failure to deal with housing affordability. At the very time when younger students are coming out of university, trying to put together a house deposit, trying to pay off other debts that they may have incurred while they were studying, through credit cards and other forms of debt, and while they are looking, in some cases, at starting a family—also an expensive proposition, as all of us who have a family know—at the very time when some of the students are finding it difficult to make ends meet, this government wants to throw another debt at them and start forcing them to repay the loans that they have taken out to undertake university studies.

Let's remember that, by and large, the only students who are taking out loans to undertake higher education are those from lower and middle-income families. If you're fortunate enough to come from a rich family, you've got parents who can pay what used to be known as HECS and now your HELP loans. But it's working-class and middle-class kids who are being faced with the prospect of having to repay their loans at a much earlier stage of their career while they are also trying to save up for other things like a house or a family.

This bill will also impose, for the first time, a lifetime borrowing limit, to constrain students' ability to undertake further study if it's going to be funded by loans. As I say, anyone who pays any attention to the Australian workplace of the present and of the future knows that, in order to get a job and keep a job in the future, Australians are going to need more education, not less. There are so many jobs that haven't required a post-school qualification that are disappearing in our economy as a result of technology, as a result of offshoring and as a result of other changes, including as a result of this government's failure to defend the car industry. We've seen Telstra announce 7,000 job losses over the last week. The banks are shedding thousands of jobs too. What is needed for people who are being made redundant from their existing employers, to ensure that they will get a new job in the future, is more education, not less. But what does this government want to do? It wants to say, 'Sorry; if you want to go and get some more education so that you can get another job, we're not going to continue supporting you in the form of loans.' Why would any government do that? Why would any government put in place active steps that are going to discourage people from undertaking further education and training, when that is exactly what people need to do to be able to compete for jobs in the future?

In essence, this bill is simply a continuation of the trend that we have seen from this government to put more and more of the burden of university education , TAFE education, traineeships and apprenticeships onto students themselves rather than onto all of us, as part of the community. This government has continued to cut general funding to universities as well as putting more pressure on students to pay more.

One of the most concerning aspects of these cuts to universities that we have seen from the government is the impact they are particularly having on regional Australia and regional Australians. Very often I come into this place and highlight the ineptitude of National Party senators and members of parliament, who say that they are the defenders of regional and rural Australians and consistently get done over by their Liberal counterparts, who are very good at putting through measures which help high-income people in big cities around Australia, to the disadvantage of people in rural and regional areas. This is another example. Universities in regional Australia have played a very important role in preparing the local community for higher skilled jobs, which tend to pay more. Also, they are very big employers in their own right in regional Australia. Many of the regional universities across Australia are some of the biggest employers in their towns and their regions, so if we're cutting funding to regional universities, as is happening under this government, what we're actually doing is cutting jobs in universities and making it harder for regional Australians to get the university education that they will need in the future.

We already know that rural and regional Australians have some of the lowest levels of participation in higher education anywhere in the country. We all know that fewer people in regional and rural Australia than in big cities get the opportunity to go to university. Wouldn't a National Party member or a National Party senator who's keen to get behind rural and regional Australia actually want to be fighting for more funding for regional universities and making it easier for regional students to get a university education? That's what they should be doing, but of course that would involve standing up to the Liberal Party, which we know our National Party members and senators are completely incapable of doing.

The cuts that this government is imposing on regional universities are twice as bad as those we're seeing on universities in the big cities. If you tally it up across the country, you find that regional universities are going to be suffering cuts of seven per cent to their funding, on average, while universities in the big cities are only suffering cuts of 3½ per cent. I don't think we should be cutting funding to the universities in the big cities either. I think we have a massive national interest in increasing funding to universities, as we do in increasing funding to TAFEs, for apprenticeships and for traineeships, but this government has the opposite view. It wants to cut back because it's got to find a way to pay for its big-business tax cuts somehow, so it says, 'Let's take money out of universities, traineeships and apprenticeships,' even though in the long term it will do massive harm to our economy, 'and instead shovel it into the pockets of our mates in the banks and big business.'

Of all the universities across the country, the university that is worst hit by the cuts this government is making to university funding is Central Queensland University. Its main campus is in Rockhampton, but it has campuses in Gladstone, Mackay, Bundaberg and other parts of Central Queensland. In fact, it's been so successful that it's now got many campuses all around the country, particularly attracting international students, who bring more revenue into the university. But, as a reward for its success, what are the government doing? They are cutting its funding by 15 per cent—more than double the amount that regional universities are getting cut overall and, on my maths, four to five times worse than the cuts we're seeing to urban universities.

If you look at who is representing the electorates that Central Queensland University is largely based in—in Central Queensland—you see that, of course, they're all National Party members. You've got George Christensen representing Dawson, Michelle Landry representing Capricornia, Ken O'Dowd representing Flynn and Keith Pitt representing Hinkler. Every single one of them is a National Party member. But have you heard anything from any of them about the cuts their own government is making to the university that is employing hundreds and thousands of people across their communities; and that is giving kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have never had a parent go to university, the opportunity to go to university and be the first person in their family to have an opportunity for a university education? Not a peep—because what would that involve? It would involve standing up to the Liberal Party. They never do it on university cuts; they never do it on health cuts; they never do it on school cuts; they never do it on apprenticeship cuts; and they never do it on cuts to big-business taxes, which are not going to benefit Central Queensland either. I really wonder why these people are in parliament. I thought the job of being a parliamentarian was to come to Canberra to defend the interests of your community, whether it be on universities, TAFEs, schools or hospitals, but these people just seem to want to get a flight down here and spend a nice week in the cold in Canberra. Frankly, I'd rather be spending a week in Central Queensland, where it's a lot warmer than here in Canberra. If you are going to come to Canberra and be cold, you might as well actually do your job properly and fight for the interests of Central Queenslanders.

The Vice-Chancellor of Central Queensland University has labelled the cuts that this government is making 'a tax on success'. I thought that the government—the Liberal and National party members—were generally about no tax and limiting tax. The vice-chancellor of this university has labelled the cuts a tax on success. So maybe any one of those four members of parliament or Senator Canavan, who's also based in Central Queensland, can listen to the vice-chancellor of the university there and do something about these cuts. I'm pleased that Russell Robertson, the Labor candidate for Capricornia, is actually doing something and speaking up about the need for these funding cuts to be reversed, because, unfortunately, the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, has yet again been missing in action on this issue. It is good to see there is at least one political representative who is taking up the issue.

The same can be said of Griffith University, whose main campus is on the Gold Coast, where my office is based. They're facing funding cuts of $92 million. Again, has anyone heard a peep out of any of the Gold Coast LNP members of parliament? Just like Central Queensland is currently a total stranglehold for the LNP, so is the Gold Coast, but these people aren't doing anything to deserve their places in parliament. They are completely lazy, completely complacent and completely happy to just nod along and let Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison make whatever funding cuts they want to make to their universities, even though it's their own constituents who miss out. You've really got to wonder why any of these people bothered getting elected to parliament if they don't want to come to Canberra and make a difference for their communities.

The real effect of this bill, in forcing students to repay their higher education loans at an earlier stage and in imposing a lifetime limit on the amount that students can borrow to undertake university and other forms of education, is that students are going to miss out on the opportunity to go through university or to go through vocational education and training through TAFE, apprenticeships and traineeships. At the very time that we are trying to get more Australians to undertake more study to prepare themselves for the new world of work—for the high-tech, high-knowledge jobs that our country is going to be producing—this government is cutting funding to those institutions and forcing students to pay more and to pay earlier in their career. It's the complete opposite of what we should be doing as a country. It's for that reason that I and the other Labor senators will be opposing this bill.

In conclusion, I also want to point out that this bill is a continuation of another trend we're seeing from this government. What this bill does is force students to repay their loans at an earlier stage, and in the background we've also got massive funding cuts that this government is making to universities and traineeships. Right now it's students in universities who are in the gunsights of this government, but it really doesn't matter what kind of young person you are in this country—you are in the sights of this government. It's got to come up with ways of paying for the big-business tax cuts that it wants to give, and the way it's doing it is increasingly by going after young people. If you're a young person who is working, this government is coming after your penalty rates, with more cuts to penalty rates coming in another five days. If you're an unemployed young person, this government is coming after you by tightening eligibility and wanting to drug-test you. If you're in training, this government is cutting funding for apprenticeships and cutting funding for TAFE, making it harder for the young hairdressers, chefs, boilermakers, electricians and chippies to get an opportunity to start their career. Now, with this bill, if you're a university student, it's coming after you by forcing you to pay more for your education and by forcing you to pay it back at an earlier stage. Why is it that this government has such a problem with young people? No matter what kind of young person you are, this government is coming after you, and, at the same time, it's using the funding it's stripping away from you to pay for a tax cut for big business. We all know what this government's priorities are. They are to support its friends in big business, even if it's young people who suffer. The parents of those young people are noticing it, as well.

I rise to contribute to this debate today in relation to the government's Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, and to put clearly on the record the Greens' opposition to this piece of legislation. We all know that this government goes on and on about not wanting political debate to get drawn into class warfare, and yet what we've got right in front of us today is a piece of legislation that takes the heart out of our higher education support scheme, right down to making it more and more difficult for students who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to get a university education, and, even if they do, to never be able to do further training or study because of the difficulty of being able to afford to pay back this loan.

Over and over again we hear this government talk about aspiration. Last week we heard from the Prime Minister, with all of his might during the income tax debate, that this was about aspiration and supporting aspirational Australians. Yet, with one fell swoop, this legislation cuts out the ability for young people right across this country to be aspirational about what level of education they get, how they go about getting it and how they set themselves up for the future, because what this bill does is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. It widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It says to young people in this country, 'Unless you've got a bank balance, probably funded by your parents, that is big enough to support your university education, you're going to have to do it pretty tough.' That's what this bill does, and it does it in two ways.

Firstly, it reduces the threshold at which students have to start paying back the debt on their university education. At the moment, on average, students have to start paying back their debt once they start earning $53,000. But this bill wants to drop that down. It wants to drop it down so far that it falls well below the average weekly earnings. It wants to drop it down to about $45,000, which is not much better than the minimum wage in this country. It is astounding that what the government wants to do here is punish students and young people who've gone out of their way to get a university education. It's going to punish them for going to university if they didn't have enough money to pay the up-front fees or to clear the HECS debt on the day they graduated or if they didn't ask mum and dad to foot the bill.

The second thing that this piece of legislation does is cap the amount of money that a student can borrow in order to further their education. At a time when we know that retraining is absolutely essential, when young people are going to enter the workforce in one job and change positions, careers and skills over and over again throughout the journey of their working life, this bill makes it more difficult for young people to get retraining and to further their education as life goes on.

Here, in this place, I think it's really important to look at the lack of vision that this government has under Malcolm Turnbull and the education minister, Simon Birmingham, for aspirational young people and for investing in education in this country. Compare that with the vision that is put forward by the Greens. We argue for an investment in lifelong learning. We know that investing in education is the best bang for buck that any government can spend. That starts with early childhood learning and goes right through school, tertiary education and lifelong learning. We know that we have to enable members of our community to train, to engage in the workforce and to retrain. That is the changing nature of working life right around us. And it's not just here in Australia, of course; it's happening right around the world.

Putting a handbrake on the ability of young people in this country, or anyone, to go back to university to complete another degree and further their skills is a stupid, stupid idea and shows a lack of vision from a government that says it cares about aspiration. It's all lip-service. Perhaps it's all about aspiration for the millionaires and the big income earners and the big banks, but there's no aspiration being put forward by this government in relation to allowing young Australians to get an education to further their opportunities and to be job ready for the workforce.

This bill comes at a time when there is a widening gap already between the haves and the have-nots. Inequality in Australia is getting worse. We know that two-thirds of students live in poverty. Poverty, of course, is one of those areas where, once you're in it, it's very, very hard to get out. It's a tricky cycle. And what this bill does is make it even harder for young people to get out of that cycle. It locks them in. If you're a young person who needs income support from the government, through youth allowance, in order to study, because your parents can't afford it, and if you need to take out a university loan because you're not lucky enough to have a mummy and daddy who are able to sign the cheques at the university down the road, then this bill locks you into a cycle of poverty right from the beginning.

It's not about whether a young person has enough spare cash in their back pocket to have a beer at the uni bar. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about being able to put food in one's belly, pay for the rent so that you've got a roof over your head, pay for the public transport that you're going to need to get to classes every day or wind back on study to take more part-time work or full-time work, paid at a ridiculously low rate, often with very few penalty rates—this government wants to cut them. We are keeping young people trapped in a cycle of poverty at a time when we should be supporting them to take up more and more opportunities for education. In fact, the best way of dealing with inequality would be to better fund education, to ensure that it's more accessible and to ensure that it's affordable for people so that, when students are studying, they are able to actually focus on their studies. This isn't just about being able to make the university degree itself affordable; it's also about ensuring that students have the support in order to be a student.

Youth allowance is ridiculously low in this country. It is well below the poverty line, so of course you can't live on it. University students struggle every day to be able to go to university, study, get an education and further their careers in order to contribute to society, while struggling on pitiful amounts under youth allowance. We need a better deal for young people in this country, particularly those who are doing everything they can to get an education and to contribute to society.

Of course, higher education isn't all about just what the market gains or about what profits can be gained. This bill sends a very clear message that that's all this government care about, that they only really care about whether there is a commercial return for a university student's university loan. What happened to the days when we understood that educating the next generation was good, in and of itself, for the society and for the community? Education is essential for a decent society. It shouldn't be simply measured against whether the government of the day thinks it offers the certainty of a commercial dividend.

We heard Senator Macdonald speaking on this bill. And while he talked about the importance of having young National and Liberal members educated at university—I think he was doing, as Senator Watt suggested, a pitch for his preselection rant—ultimately he missed the key point, which is that any young person in this country should have the opportunity to go to university, to get an education and to contribute back to the community and the society. We, as a decent society, pay for the opportunity for some of those young people to go to university because we know we get a dividend back in what that contributes to the community.

Nurses don't earn very much. They should earn more. But would anyone in this place begrudge a university graduate who's done a nursing degree next time they're confronted with them at an emergency ward in a hospital? Is the Prime Minister going to turn around to the next nurse he sees when he falls ill or a member of his family falls ill and say, 'But have you paid back your university debt yet?' Of course not, because we know the role of these people in society is absolutely paramount and essential.

It shouldn't be that, just because you're not rich enough to pay your university degree off either upfront or quickly, you don't deserve support from the government. University education is getting more and more expensive. These days, the average fees that students pay and debts that students graduate with range anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000—sometimes more. If you've studied medicine, you're more likely to have a debt of $60,000 to $70,000. If you do a combined degree, your debt is closer to $100,000. University students today are graduating with debts of this magnitude, and yet we expect them to start paying back their debt when they've just exited university, they've just entered the workforce and they're only earning $45,000 before tax. This is absurd. Either we value education in this country or we don't. Either we value the dedication and determination of young people in Australia to go to university, get an education and become our nurses, our doctors and our teachers or we don't.

Why is it that rich kids, because money doesn't matter for them, are the only ones who can pick which university degrees they would like? The reality is that those lower paid jobs are essential for our community but those who are in them still aren't paid what they are worth. Teachers, nurses and early childhood educators are the people who are going to be graduating with debts and having to pay them back on pitiful wages. It is simply unfair. Inequality is a problem in this country, and the sooner this government works that out the better. If they don't, they are going to cop it at the ballot box. Australians are not silly. The voters can see what's going on here. The government has prioritised giving $140 billion in tax cuts which primarily help high-income earners. Later on today, we're going to be debating a bill that gives $85 billion in tax cuts to big corporations—and then the government turn around and say, 'We don't have enough money left to fund education.' It's absurd. It says everything you need to know about the priorities of this government. They don't care about young people, and they certainly don't care about young people from low-income families. They'd prefer that teachers, nurses and early childhood educators went off and did their university degrees, started paying back their loans and then shut up and weren't heard from again.

The problem with this bill is that the government's argument is that these thresholds need to be lowered because somehow, apparently, wage growth is stalling, yet the argument for why we need to give income tax cuts to the rich is that wage growth is going to explode. This government picks and chooses which arguments it wants to run on a bill being debated based on what is going to satisfy the big end of town. 'Let's keep low-income workers down and let's keep kids from low-income households locked out of the system.' This government has already cut $2.2 billion from our university sector. Not only are they making it harder for students to be able to cover the costs of their education; they're making it harder and harder for universities to cover that gap.

I fear that we are sliding into a future Australia that says, 'If you come from a low-income family, if you're not part of the rich kids who went to the best private schools in this country, then you don't deserve a quality education; you can stay over there.' I'm worried that we're sliding towards an Australia that says, 'You can only go to university if your parents are rich.' I'm worried that we're sliding towards a future Australia that says, 'If you come from a poor household, you should stay poor. Don't get in our way. Do the jobs we don't want to do, but don't complain.' That's not the kind of Australia I want, and I don't believe for a second that it's the kind of Australia that anyone else out there in the real world wants either. The Prime Minister talked about aspiration. Well, this is the exact opposite. Aspiration for some but not for all is what this bill says. That's the attitude of the Prime Minister. It is going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and that is not the Australia that I want to see.

At a time when the workforce is so rapidly changing, we need investment in our education system across the board—in our early childhood sector, in our schools, in our universities and in our TAFEs. It's going to be a normal thing for people to have to re-enter education and get retraining. Why on earth we would be making that harder is beyond me. It shows a total lack of vision from this government—unless, of course, the vision is to look after the rich and shut out the poor. You can't read this piece of legislation as anything else. It is part of that narrative from this Prime Minister and his government, and it is the exact opposite of the decent Australia that we should all be striving for.

Tax cuts for big banks and big corporations, and tax cuts for millionaires—and then all the money is spent, so there's nothing left to be spent on educating the next generation. That is what is before us today. This is a matter of priorities. I say to the crossbench: Don't fall for this. Don't fall for this false argument from the Prime Minister that we can't afford to invest in our young people. We can afford it, but it means that we can't afford tax cuts for the banks. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

“, but the Senate notes that:

(a) the government is at war with young people, pursuing policies that put the aspirations of young people to get a degree, own a home and pay the bills further out of reach;

(b) the government is cutting $2.2 billion from universities around the country, without a vote in the Parliament or a mandate from the public;

(c) this bill makes students pay back more of their debt, sooner, rather than doing anything to assist people with the cost of living while studying or to boost wages upon graduation; and

(d) no government that genuinely supports aspiration would make it harder to study at university.”

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. Labor opposes this bill in its current form, and I'll explain why to the Senate shortly. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues Senator O'Neill, Senator Marshall and Senator Collins—the Labor members of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill. Their dissenting report sets out very clearly and cogently the many problems with this bill as it stands.

Next, I want to point out to the Senate the proud record of past Labor governments in the great work of broadening access to higher education in Australia. In 1940, when Australia had only six small and very elitist universities, John Curtin's wartime Labor government dramatically increased the number of scholarships available to students from government schools to enter university and also allowed women to apply for these scholarships for the first time. When Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972, Australia was still served by a small number of elite, fee-charging universities. Although the university sector certainly expanded during the Menzies era, our higher education system was still geared to the economy of the 1950s, not the new knowledge based economy which was emerging in the 1970s. Most university students still came from private schools and upper-income families. The only way students from low-income families could get to university was by winning a scholarship. Gough Whitlam and his education minister, Kim Beazley Senior, made university education free and introduced the first student funding scheme, the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, known as TEAS. These two reforms revolutionised higher education in Australia. A whole generation of bright students from government schools were able to go to university who would not otherwise have been able to do so. They included some of the very same people who now want to withdraw that same access from the current generation of young Australians.

By the late 1980s, it was apparent that Australia's massively expanded higher education system could not be sustained on an entirely free basis. Rather than introducing up-front university fees, as the Liberal opposition of the time wanted to do, the Hawke government, through its visionary education minister, John Dawkins, introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme in 1989. Under this scheme, a fee was charged to all university students and the Commonwealth paid the balance. But students could defer payment of this fee and repay it through the tax system when their income exceeded a threshold level. This measure preserved the access to higher education created by the Whitlam government while requiring those students who gained high-income employment after graduation to repay some of the cost of their education once they could afford to do. This was a great Labor reform, which has stood the test of time.

The Howard government brought in several retrograde measures designed to undermine the principles established by Gough Whitlam of equal access and no up-front fees. They greatly increased the fees charged under the renamed HELP scheme and also allowed the universities to bring back full, up-front fees for some courses. The Howard changes have allowed the older universities to reclaim their elite status, becoming largely fee-paying institutions. And I will add there that, in fact, because those universities have become largely fee-paying institutions and because of the cuts to the higher education sector, those universities have, of course, had to go offshore to look for students, and we now see the result of this. We see that, in fact, some universities are tailoring courses for particular cohorts of overseas students, and we have seen a recent example where one higher education institution apologised for a supposedly incorrect use of course material when it was brought to the attention of the Chinese embassy here. I think this is one of the consequences that couldn't be seen at the time, but that is what happens when higher education institutions have to seek out fee-paying students in order to sustain their business model.

As a result of these changes, the ability of students from lower-income families to access universities—and, particularly, the more prestigious universities—declined, and students also amassed increasingly onerous levels of debt. It has always been obvious that the Liberal Party wants to return Australia to a two-tier higher education system in which high-prestige courses and high-prestige universities, which naturally lead to higher-income careers, are once again reserved for the children of the affluent elite, while everyone else is channelled off into lower-prestige universities or into the TAFE system, even as that system is being systematically attacked by Liberal state governments.

The last Labor government took a stand against this retrograde trend. In 2009, Julia Gillard, as education minister, introduced the demand driven system. Universities were allowed to enrol unlimited numbers of students in virtually all undergraduate courses in order to increase educational attainment and student equity. Labor's reforms aimed to increase the proportion of young Australians with undergraduate degrees to 40 per cent and raise the proportion of students from lower income families to 20 per cent. This objective was funded through the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships program. This reform was spectacularly successful. University participation rose enormously without any sacrifice of quality. Australia quickly moved from an elite higher education system to a mass higher education system. The proportion of students from lower income families rose from 16.2 per cent to 17.7 per cent between 2009 and 2014. In the same period, the overall number of students from lower income families increased by 44 per cent. Since 2009, the number of Indigenous undergraduate students has increased by 60 per cent. The number of students with a disability has increased by nearly 80 per cent.

It's a wonderful outcome.

It is a wonderful outcome. Andrew Harvey, Director of the Access and Achievement Research Unit at La Trobe University, wrote in June 2016: 'The improvements in equity are even more impressive when considered in historical context. The level of low socioeconomic status participation was virtually unchanged from 1990, when data was first collected, until the introduction of the demand driven system. Class is intractable but not immovable.'

Sadly, however, we now, once again, have a government which does not see greater equity in access to higher education as a priority or even a desirable objective. We've seen during the tax debate in recent weeks that this government's overriding priority is to reduce the amount of tax paid by corporations and high-income earners—the people who essentially fund the Liberal Party and the people who vote for it. That means government spending has to be cut accordingly and government revenue from other sources increased. University education is once again to be a privilege rather than a right; and access is, once again, to be cut off for students from lower income families and government schools.

This bill must be seen in that context. Its primary motive is to cut costs to fund the government's high-income tax cuts. Its secondary motive is to roll back the Labor government's reforms and reduce equity in our higher education system. The dissenting report by the Labor members of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill sets out in detail our objections to this bill. Firstly, we oppose the government's move to lower the HELP repayment threshold to $45,000—only $9,000 a year more than the minimum wage. This completely contradicts the original premise of the HECS and HELP schemes, which was that students should only start repaying some of costs of their university education when they reach an income level high enough to enable them to do so while also meeting the other demands that people face at that age, such as buying a first home and raising a family.

As the dissenting report says, the government has made no sufficient case for changes to HELP beyond budget savings. The report quotes Professor Bruce Chapman, an economist and academic, who designed the original HECS student loan system. He testified: 'I think it is unfortunate when people focus on the stock of the debt. It is really not very interesting. What's interesting is the overall amount that is not repaid. If that number is even at 25 per cent, there is no crisis here, there is no crisis in the system.'

Labor also opposes the government's proposal in this bill to introduce a limit on how much students can borrow under HELP. Currently, students enrolled in Commonwealth supported places have no limit to the amount they can defer through the HELP scheme. The proposal in this bill would create a borrowing limit across all of the HELP programs. The shadow minister for higher education, Ms Terri Butler, made it clear in her speech on this bill that Labor does not oppose the principle of loan limits operating as price signals. But we believe that the proposal in this bill is too rigid. It ignores the fact that our rapidly changing economy and workforce require more and more students to take on additional study throughout their lives to meet the changing needs of the labour market.

This proposal also ignores the fact that the universities—in particular, the elite universities—are now free to charge whatever fees they like and that there is a growing gap between what university courses cost and the assistance available to students to pay for them. As a result, a student in graduate debt is a major concern and has the potential to be a drag on the economy. Young families cannot buy homes if they are crippled by student debt. Labor does not want a system where students have to take out commercial loans to pay for the gap between fees set by universities and the loan borrowing amount. This bill does nothing to discourage reckless high-fee settings. For these reasons Labor opposes this bill and urges the Senate to reject it.

While we're on the subject of higher education, I want to say something about the current controversy over the Australian National University's decision to reject a proposed course on Western civilisation sponsored by the Ramsay Centre. As with so many other policy debates in Australia at present, this debate has become yet another episode in the culture wars. On the one hand, supporters of the Ramsay Centre course say that the ANU has surrendered to a coterie of left-wing academics and students who hate Western civilisation and all of its works, while admiring or at least excusing the behaviour of totalitarian regimes, and who fear that such a course would undermine their ideological hegemony in the universities. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that such a course would be mere apologetics for the West's sorry history of imperialism, colonialism, militarism, racism, and all of the other isms, and would ignore the history of non-Western civilisations, people of colour, women and other oppressed people. Both of these positions are, of course, caricatures and neither of them is very helpful in understanding the issues involved.

I'm a big fan of Western civilisation and I think that our universities should be teaching students about it and about the Jewish, Christian, Greek and Roman foundations of Western culture, religion, politics, literature and art. I studied both Latin and Greek at school, and, perhaps less usefully, Mediaeval French as well. My life and career have been hugely enlightened and enriched by my studies of these subjects. There is no contradiction in teaching these things and also teaching about non-Western civilisations, particularly the civilisations of our Asian neighbours. Indeed it can only help with diversity and understanding of different cultures if we study a variety of courses and if we study different cultures. Australian universities are perfectly capable of teaching both and Australian students are perfectly capable of learning both—nor should any course on any type of civilisation shy away from teaching about the failings of those civilisations.

To go back to the bill: we don't want to discourage people from learning. I would argue that we need more, not less. We don't need cuts, and we don't need a more-euphemistically-phrased freeze on higher education. The sector needs more support, not less. Why don't we not give tax cuts to big banks and foreign billionaires? Why give $80 billion in tax cuts to those groups and not support the education of everyone we possibly can in our society with a merits based system?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this chamber in support of the proposed change to the student loan system through the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill. After much consideration I have come to the view that the lower loan repayment threshold is preferable to other higher education cuts. I doubt that future students entering tertiary education would appreciate fewer opportunities and perhaps a lower quality education than those who are already reaping the benefits intellectually as well as financially from their time at university.

If the savings from this measure, estimated by the government to be $231 million, are not legislated, the money will have to come from elsewhere in the education budget. At a time of growing debt and with the budget struggling to return to balance, it is important that this bill rein in the rising costs to government of HELP loans. Total HELP lending is growing rapidly, and I agree with the need for repayments to keep pace with HELP lending growth. Those who are reasonably able to pay off their HELP loans should do so to avoid the student loan system becoming unsustainable for future generations and to avoid our loan systems becoming unnecessarily costly to taxpayers, as the Grattan Institute argued in its submission to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

We should also take into account the point raised by Grattan, that HELP's largest cost to the taxpayer is debt not expected to be repaid. In 2012, HELP debt was $25 billion, whereas today it is $55 billion. Of that $55 billion, nearly $20 billion is doubtful debt. The evidence is significant, however. On its own, it's not sufficient reason to vote for the bill. Fortunately, this bill does a good job, in my view, in balancing economic sustainability with fairness to students and to those repaying student loans.

I have decided to accept the readjustment of the current repayment pathway. Growing slowly upwards from a fair one per cent repayment rate for those earning $45,000, this legislation offers a smoother repayment process. Those earning between $57,000 and $98,000 will see considerable benefit, and high-income earners will pay their fair share as well. The legislation will couple lower repayment rates across the board for the vast majority of lower- and middle-income earners with smoother incremental rises. That will give significant relief to many, at the same time as increasing the amount of loans that are ultimately repaid. For example: under the current system, from 1 July this year someone on an annual income of $58,378 would face a repayment rate of four per cent. By contrast, if this bill were passed we would see the same person pay a repayment rate of 2.5 per cent. That is a saving of $876 for that individual per year.

I would also like to draw greater attention to the fact that those struggling to pay off their HELP loan do have the option to defer their repayments or to set up a repayment plan that would provide appropriate relief. As I understand it, the vast bulk of those who apply for hardship relief are successful. The hardship provisions provide a responsible safety net to ensure that this bill does not apply undue burden on those in hardship. I support efforts to increase the visibility of the hardship arrangements so that those who need relief get it. I would encourage my fellow senators to consider the hardship provision when weighing up the impact that the lower repayment threshold might have.

Overall, the economic sustainability of the student loan system needs to be balanced with fairness to students, and this bill achieves that balance. With regard to the amendments put forward by Senator Bernardi: I too agree that public and private universities should be treated fairly. His amendments would level the playing field for student access to both private and public universities. The current 25 per cent fee for students at Torrens University Australia in my home state of South Australia, Bond University, the University of Notre Dame Australia and the University of Divinity should be scrapped. One strong reason to vote for the Australian Conservatives amendments is that they would encourage fairer access to students across the board to attend programs that are best fit for them.

It seems to me that the current 25 per cent fee could act as a disincentive for some students when weighing up whether to apply to a private university. A consequence of removing the fee could be that more eligible candidate students, and from less affluent backgrounds, for example, might choose to apply to private universities if they felt that those programs would give them most benefit. I would encourage my fellow senators to vote for the Australian Conservatives amendments on the grounds of fairness—primarily for our students but also for educational providers.

Today we're talking about the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. We've come a long way with education, but we've still got a long way to go. This is about students having to pay back to the taxpayers the loans that they've taken out. It has to be sustainable for future generations, and that's what the discussion here is about today.

A lot of Australians are grateful for the help from taxpayers and for having the opportunity to go on to further education. We have come to a stage in Australia where I believe that we are pushing people onto further education—people who do not have the qualifications and who should not be in universities because they're not able to do it. I think there needs to be a harder test on people before they go into universities. They're taking out exorbitant loans and they are not able to pay them back, and a lot of people are not able to get jobs when they finish.

Debate interrupted.

by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Cash, the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, will be absent from question time today, Tuesday, 26 June, until Thursday, 28 June, inclusive due to overseas ministerial business. In Senator Cash's absence, Senator Canavan will represent the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, and the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation; Senator Fifield will represent the Attorney-General; and Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Women, and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann, who once said he liked my accent better than his, so let's try this out. United States Republican Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio says that despite hopes that companies would use corporate tax cuts to invest in American workers:

In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker.

Is Senator Rubio correct?

No, he's not. In the United States the evidence is very clear: the Trump administration corporate tax cuts have led to increased investment, increased employment and increased wages.

Honourable senators interjecting—

It's interesting that the Labor Party would ask me this question, because today we had a captain's call from the Leader of the Opposition. He was so scared not even the Labor caucus would support his socialist antibusiness agenda that he wasn't even prepared to consult them on it. He was so worried that his socialist antibusiness, antigrowth, anti-opportunity agenda was so left wing that not even the Labor caucus would support him. So here we have the Labor leader again going to put higher taxes on business.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Bill Shorten has got a dilemma. Why is all of this happening? Bill Shorten is under pressure. He lost three seats and he's now trying to make up the losses. He lost three seats because his rolled gold guarantee wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Here he is now gambling to win back his losses, and he's gambling with Australian jobs by increasing taxes on business. Mr Shorten knows that higher taxes on business mean fewer jobs. Fewer jobs are bad for the people of Longman, are bad for the people of Braddon, are bad for the people of Australia. That is the truth of it. The people of Longman, the people of Braddon, the people of Australia cannot afford the bill.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Before I call Senator Keneally, I remind senators of my strong request to hear the question in silence.

Thank you, Mr President. I have a supplementary question. The Turnbull government consistently references the United States' corporate tax cut to justify its $80 billion handout to big business. Minister, given Republican Senator Rubio's statement, can you confirm that the Turnbull government's priority is boosting share prices and giving corporate executives a bonus?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Before I call Senator Cormann, I asked senators to allow all others to hear the question. It didn't last 10 seconds. I'm going to insist on silence during the questions.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. We know that Bill Shorten thinks that continuing to mislead the Australian people will somehow win him votes. He knows that nearly half of the budget costs of our business tax cuts go to small- and medium-sized businesses, because today none other than Bill Shorten has announced that he's going to whack small- and medium-sized business with higher taxes. And do you know what? He didn't ask a single person in this room whether that was a good idea.

Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Wong on a point of order.

A point of order on direct relevance. I know Senator Cormann does like to talk about the Labor Party. We're asking him about Republican Senator Marco Rubio's comments that there is 'no evidence that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker'. That was the primary question. The supplementary obviously referenced that. I'd ask the minister to return to the question.

You've kindly reminded the minister of the question. At the end of the question you asked, 'Can you confirm?' and, I think, the minister is directly relevant to that part of the question.

I was, of course, directly answering the question. The evidence is clear that in the United States lower taxes on businesses have led to more investment, stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages. We all remember that Senator Cameron said that he was consulted. Maybe that was because Mr Shorten was worried, because Senator Cameron in the past has referred to lobotomised zombies and what we're hearing in the media is that the Labor caucus has gone back to being lobotomised zombies— (Time expired)

Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.

When even Republican Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio says, 'Workers haven't benefitted from company tax cuts,' why does the Turnbull government continue to mislead Australian workers?

I ask a very simple rhetorical question of Senator Keneally: which business do you think is going to be more successful, the business that gets to keep more of its own money, so it can reinvest it in future growth, or the business that has to hand over more money to the government? Do you think a business that gets to keep more of its money, to invest in future growth opportunities, does do better or the business that has got to pay higher taxes? The United States is the biggest source of—

Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Collins, on a point of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Order on my left! Senator O'Neill, one of your colleagues is on her feet.

Again on relevance, we don't need the minister's hypothetical examples. Just answer the question.

Senator Collins, it was a very widely drafted end of that question. I think the minister is directly relevant to it.

Our future economic prosperity and our future economic security depends on our capacity to continue to attract foreign investment. Our biggest source of direct foreign investment is the United States. The United States has a tax rate of 21 per cent. We have a tax rate for businesses over $50 million of 30 per cent. Where do you think those that are currently delivering most of our foreign direct investment will invest in the future?

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 benefitting patients within my home state of Queensland?

Yes, Senator, I can. I'm proud to be part of the government who is absolutely committed to bringing the budget back into balance and whose track record on economic growth has seen one million new jobs created since coming into government. It's because of the coalition's strong economic management that we've been able to deliver the essential services in health that all Queenslanders rely on. Commonwealth funding in public hospitals in Queensland has increased from $2.7 billion, when we came to government, to $6.5 billion in 2024-25, which is a 145 per cent increase over that period.

We put forward a generous offer to states and territories. We've committed an additional $30 billion for public hospitals. That equates to millions of new hospital services each year for Australian patients, and in our public hospitals, and thousands of new frontline doctors and nurses. Under the new deal, Queensland will receive an additional $7.5 billion over five years for public hospital services and that's an increase of over 34 per cent. Three Labor and three Liberal governments have signed on but, unfortunately, the Queensland state Labor government has not. This is despite that every year there would be a record funding amount in each and every state and territory meaning more doctors, more nurses and more services for the patients of Longman. Like any Labor politician, Annastacia Palaszczuk is putting politics ahead of patients and turning her back on more than $7.5 billion in additional funding for Queensland patients.

Senator Stoker, a supplementary question.

Can the minister outline how a stronger economy enables the government to invest in drug and alcohol support services in Queensland, particularly in Longman?

The Turnbull government has a track record of delivering a stronger economy, enabling us to deliver those essential health services that Australians deserve and expect, including drug and alcohol support services in Longman. Earlier this month we were able to announce $11 million to boost drug and alcohol support services in Caboolture and the Bribie Island region. This will increase detox and rehabilitation services, including services specific to the treatment of ice addiction. This funding will save lives, keep families together and create a safer community. It means that Longman residents can have access to services closer to home rather than travelling to Brisbane for help. Unlike Labor's promises, this funding will start flowing next month. This is part of our broader $713 million investment to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities.

Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question.

Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the funding of hospitals and health services in Queensland?

On Friday we heard Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten get caught out by Patsy from Caboolture on 4BC with Ben Davis, lying to listeners about access to cancer treatment in the Moreton Bay region. Patsy really set him straight on the issue. Shorten was claiming that patients in Longman had to drive to Brisbane to access essential chemo treatment that, according to Patsy, the local in this conversation—

Senator McAllister, on a point of order.

I would ask Senator McKenzie to refer to Mr Shorten by his correct title.

Senator McKenzie knows the rules of the chamber.

Well, Patsy caught Mr Shorten lying about access to chemo services in that region. So, in terms of being—

Senator Wong?

Can she please withdraw?

Yes, quite right. Senator McKenzie, I would ask you to withdraw that particular statement about Mr Shorten.

I will withdraw that statement, and you can look at the transcript of the interview on my Facebook page after question time. I'm not calling him a liar; Patsy from Caboolture did. In terms of accessing chemo treatment, it's actually available in Nambour. According to Patsy, there are services available down the road, in Redcliffe.

Senator Collins, on a point of order.

Mr President, I would ask for you to look into the matter of whether advertising web pages is appropriate during question time. Senator McKenzie has stretched the boundaries of what she does on social media, even when she's chairing a committee inquiry where she's been forced to withdraw matters.

Senator Collins, that's not relevant.

I would ask you to look into the matter.

Government senators interjecting—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Order! While I am speaking, Senator Sterle—and on my right, the colleagues I did not have a chance to name—I'll ask for silence. I will do that, Senator Collins. It's an interesting question. I'm not, off the top of my head, familiar with the example you refer to. Senator Hanson, a point of order?

On the point of order: Mr President, you actually said that it was unparliamentary for Mr Shorten to be called a liar, although it didn't come from Senator McKenzie herself; it was basically someone else calling him that. So, in your ruling, how can that be unparliamentary?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Watt interjecting—

Order! Senator Watt and others on my left, I would like to hear the point of order. That is a basic courtesy.

Senator Watt interjecting—

Senator Watt, I'm going to insist that, when I'm speaking, senators remain silent. Please extend the courtesy that all senators ask for when they're raising a point of order—to be heard in relative silence. Senator Hanson, please continue.

As I was saying, Senator McKenzie has been made to make a withdrawal of her comments. But they are not directly her comments. They have come from someone else; she's actually quoting someone else. How is that unparliamentary?

On the point of order: I asked Senator McKenzie to withdraw. She did. I heard it as a comment that she made. But I will remind senators that you can't clothe unparliamentary language with a quote from someone else if something is clearly unparliamentary. Senator Wong?

I'm sorry: I wasn't sure whether you'd ruled, but if I could make two points very briefly on the point of order—the first is that in fact your predecessor did—

Government senators interjecting—

Why are you so defensive?

Senator Collins, on my right there were numerous senators—I couldn't see. I'm going to ask that, while points of order are raised, a courtesy is extended to all senators. Senator Wong, please continue.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Can I take Senator Wong's point of order and then I'll come to you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Wong was on her feet. Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. I will come to you next. Senator Wong.

On the point of order, I think Senator Parry did, in fact, rule on this point in relation to Senator Cash's quoting of some rather unparliamentary and crude language. I think there is very clear precedent on this.

You are quite right. I'd like to familiarise myself with that. The general principle is unparliamentary language cannot be clothed in a quotation from an external source. But I will come back to the chamber on the issue Senator Collins also raised. Senator Macdonald, on a point of order.

On your ruling, Senator Wong demands courtesies she shows nobody else.

Order! Very few people in this chamber are saintly in innocence with regard to interjections. I constantly remind all senators and single out those when they have made numerous and repeated interjections. I will call Senator McKenzie to continue her answer for the remaining 12 seconds if she wishes.

Yes, I do. Let's look at the numbers because they never lie. The Commonwealth funding to Longman has increased by 38 per cent, and the state Labor funding by four per cent. That's the truth.

My simple question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. It was revealed in March that in the Business Council of Australia's letter to senators, Australia's biggest businesses deleted a commitment to 'increased wages'. If the Senate passed the Turnbull government's $80 billion handout to big business, has the Prime Minister now secured a guarantee from business leaders to increase wages if he gets his way and hands $80 billion to big business?

If the Senate passes our business tax cut proposal in full, wages will be higher than they otherwise would be. There's no question because investment will be stronger, growth will be stronger, the opportunity for business to expand will be stronger, and businesses that are more successful will hire more people. Businesses that are more successful across Australia, hire more people. There is no competition—

Senator Sterle, on a point of order?

On a point of order of relevance, I clearly asked the minister, 'Has the Prime Minister secured a guarantee from big business to deliver wage increases?'

You have restated the question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. He is being directly relevant to the question you asked. Senator Cormann.

Thank you very much, Mr President. When Labor lost government, the economy was weakening and unemployment was rising, and rising unemployment means less bargaining power for workers and lower wages growth. We have worked hard to turn that situation around. Economic growth is strengthening and more jobs are being created. As more jobs are created, the bargaining power of workers increases and they are able to secure higher wages. Now let me read this to you:

Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.

That was from Mr Bill Shorten, House of Representatives, on 23 August 2011 while in opposition. Listen to what shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen had to say seven months before we committed to lower the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent. He said:

Labor accepts that company tax falls hardest on workers rather than wealthy shareholders, and aims for a 25 per cent company tax rate to spur economic growth …

Asked if he accepted former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson's statement that company tax falls hardest on workers, Mr Bowen told the AFR tax reform summit on Tuesday:

It is a statement of fact which I agree with.

He also said:

I would like to see the corporate tax rate come down over time. I have previously said the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate.

Mr Bowen added that it would not be easy to do. We found out it's not easy to do, because the Labor Party is intent on selling Australian jobs overseas. You are intent on selling out the best interests of working families around Australia.

Senator Sterle, on a supplementary question.

The leaked letter also revealed that Australia's biggest businesses deleted a commitment to create more Australian jobs in the cities, suburbs, towns and bush. To the minister: has the Prime Minister now secured a guarantee from business leaders to create more Australian jobs if he gets his way and hands $80 billion to big business?

Firstly, I don't accept the premise of the question. Secondly, the reference to a $80 billion tax giveaway to big business is false, and the Labor Party knows that. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. The Labor Party doesn't understand basic economics. A more successful business will hire more Australians. A less successful business will hire fewer Australians.

Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on a point of order.

The point of order is on direct relevance. This question is about a leaked letter which revealed that the commitment to creating more jobs was deleted by business leaders. That is what we're asking about.

Senator Cormann is being relevant to the question as asked, in my view, Senator Wong.

The Labor Party do not understand basic economics, which is why they left behind a weakening economy and rising unemployment when they last lost government. Businesses will not pay higher wages because they want to but because they have to. If more jobs are being created and there's more competition for workers, then, of course, they'll have to pay more to secure their services. That has always been the key ingredient to stronger wages growth. Stronger wages growth is secure on the back of stronger economic growth and more jobs. Guess what? Higher taxes under Labor will lead to less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs and lower wages. Lower taxes will mean stronger growth, more investment and, of course, higher wages. (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question.

The leaked letter also revealed that Australia's biggest businesses deleted a commitment to 'pay our tax'. I ask a very simple question: has the Prime Minister at least secured a guarantee from business leaders that they will act consistently with the law and pay their tax, Minister?

Of course there's a guarantee that businesses around Australia have to pay their tax. It's called the law, and it's called enforcement action by the Australian Taxation Office. If you look at what the tax commissioner, Chris Jordan, told Senate estimates, he's pointed out that the tax office expects to raise $10 billion more, in this coming year, from the high end of town, as you call it—from multinationals—as a result of stronger growth, more jobs and our effective action against multinational tax avoidance. We've passed the multinational tax avoidance laws. We've passed the diverted profits tax laws. We've passed law after law and taken initiative after initiative to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. This next year, according to the tax commissioner, more than $10 billion more in revenue will be raised as a result of our action in terms of better policy and better enforcement action. Under Labor, higher taxes will mean fewer jobs and lower wages. Under us, lower taxes will mean more jobs and higher wages. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Minister Payne. The 2016 Defence white paper says the government would be acquiring seven Triton drones at a cost of between $3 billion and $4 billion. Today, only two years into the life of the white paper, the government has instead said it would be acquiring six drones at a cost of $7 billion. This amounts to a doubling of the cost or a blowout of more than 100 per cent. Can you please clarify for the Senate exactly how many drones you are buying and what they are costing, and, if today's reports are accurate, given you are spending nearly $200 billion of taxpayers' money on defence, how can the Australian people have any confidence that there won't be billions and billions of dollars more in cost blowouts?

I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his interest in the acquisition of the MQ-4C Triton, which will, of course, provide the Air Force with a high-altitude, long-endurance, remotely-piloted aircraft system which is optimised for use in maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. It is designed to operate either alone or in conjunction with the P-8A Poseidon.

I note the senator's reference to the defence white paper. The government's indication today is the commencement of the acquisition program for the MQ-4C Triton. We have indicated that our intention is to purchase six, with an option to look at a seventh.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.

I got to my feet just a little bit too late there, Minister! You didn't say what they were going to cost, which was the key part of my question—

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right!

and why you got it so badly wrong and whether you're making this up as you go along. Can the minister rule out cuts to other government services to fund these kinds of cost blowouts that will see billions of dollars of taxpayer money, by the way, going to some of the most profitable arms manufacturers on the planet?

As Senator Whish-Wilson is well aware—he is an active participant in the Defence estimates process and in discussion around Defence's Integrated Investment Program and defence budget matters—those matters which go to the cost of the programs are always managed through the Integrated Investment Program, which was released in conjunction with the white paper to which the senator has previously referred. We've talked in that process about managing the cost through the IIP itself. That is the way we intend to do it; it's the way we've been quite public about doing it.

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.

Minister, I suggest you're not doing a very good job, given that cost blowout. Your own 2016 Defence White Paper also did not identify an escalation in our region in the overall threat level to Australia. Today, the media have written up the announcement as Australia joining the drone wars. Minister, shouldn't we be looking to de-escalate tensions in our region, rather than fuelling a regional arms race that is only likely to increase tensions and the likelihood of conflict in our region?

I completely reject the premise of Senator Whish-Wilson's question that the acquisition of the MQ-4C Triton goes to that in any way. What it does go to is ensuring and addressing questions around the safety of Australia and our interests. That is the role of the Australian Defence Force, and it is the role of a government to protect the nation and our interests. In this region, a region in which our area of maritime surveillance covers 10 per cent of the earth's surface, the surveillance task is a very considerable one, and Senator Whish-Wilson is well aware of that. It's considerable in terms of what we do for ourselves and it's considerable in terms of what we do more broadly to add to regional security and stability, and this particular capability will make a very significant contribution to addressing the challenges that we face.

My question is to Senator McKenzie, representing the Minister for Health. When does the government intend to respond to important Senate health inquiries? One example is the report of the inquiry into the value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs, an inquiry initiated by Centre Alliance. The report was tabled back in last December.

I thank Senator Griff for his question. The government will be responding in due course to the Senate reports as they were tabled. But, in terms of the value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs, I'd like to assure Senator Griff that, when it comes to one of the terms of reference—i. the current government incentives for private health—I'm really happy, in the time that I have available, to run the senator through the significant reforms we as a government have already undertaken in this regard.

We have been committed to making private health insurance more affordable for the more than 13 million Australian families, younger people and older Australians who need it. The change in premium that has been announced in recent times is the lowest in 17 years. We know that every dollar matters. We discounted hospital premiums by up to 10 per cent, which younger Australians will benefit from. They'll be able to keep those discounts until they turn 40, and that could mean savings of $200 a year on a $2,000 policy. We're providing greater access to mental health services by allowing people to upgrade their cover and ensuring they no longer have to wait for up to months to access mental health services.

People in rural and regional Australia will now be able to access travel and accommodation benefits if they're forced to travel for treatment under their private health insurance, and we're making private health insurance simpler by requiring insurers to categorise products as gold, silver, bronze or basic. In the package, we've also announced flexibility for people to increase their maximum excess to assist in the reduction of their overall insurance premium. We're going to continue to support affordable health insurance via a private health insurance rebate, which is currently worth $6 billion a year.

Senator Griff, a supplementary question.

Minister, 'in due course' is not in accordance with the agreement to respond within three months. I'd like to ask that question for another inquiry, the inquiry into the funding for research into cancers with low survival rates. This inquiry took place even earlier and its report was tabled in November last year. When do you anticipate that you'll be providing a response to that inquiry?

I'm advised by Minister Hunt, the responsible minister, that that government response will be handed down in due course. But I'm very happy to speak on the medical research investment that our government is making. On 24 June we will invest $23 million in our world-class researchers to continue the fight against rare cancers and rare diseases.

Senator Griff interjecting—

I know you're laughing, Senator Griff, but that's actually what your Senate inquiry was about. Although we've seen increased survival rates for some cancers, such as breast cancer and bowel cancer, survival rates for rare cancers, such as brain cancer and ovarian cancer, have remained relatively unchanged for some time, as you know. It's a tragedy that rare cancers were estimated to have caused nearly 40 per cent of total cancer deaths in 2017. This funding will create opportunities to address the devastating survival rates associated with some of our cruellest cancers and diseases. (Time expired)

Senator Griff, a final supplementary question.

Minister, I certainly was not laughing at the topic; I was very much laughing at the response of 'due course'. Will the government commit to tabling its responses to both of those reports before sitting resumes in August or, at the very least, within the first sitting week in August?

I'll take that on notice on behalf of Minister Hunt.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. A secret survey conducted by the Business Council of Australia found that fewer than one in five chief executives—that's less than one in five chief executives—will use the Turnbull government's $80 billion handout to big business to increase wages or employ more staff. How can the minister continue to tell Australian workers that the Turnbull government's $80 billion handout to big business will benefit them when even business leaders know it's not true?

As I said in response to a previous question, it is clear that the Australian Labor Party in 2018 no longer understands the principles of basic free-market economics.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Let me tell you what doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. There are examples around the world that show—

Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins, Senator Wong is on her feet. I will call Senator Wong when there is silence. Senator Wong, on a point of order.

The point of order is direct relevance. This is a question about a survey which indicates that that fewer than one in five chief executives will use a tax cut to increase wages or employ more staff. I fail to see how an answer about socialism can possibly be directly relevant to that.

The minister has only been speaking for 20 seconds. There was a second part of the question that started with, 'How can the minister continue', which I didn't get the rest of. Given that the minister has been speaking for 20 seconds I do consider him at this point to be in order.

The interjection from Senator Collins, which I take, was that the market doesn't work. That is the problem with the modern Labor Party. The other thing she said—

Senator Collins, on a point of order.

The minister is misrepresenting my interjection. What I said was: 'Trickle-down does not work.'

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Senator Collins, and Senators Fifield and Birmingham, the way to avoid misrepresentations of interjections is not to make interjections in the first place. I encourage all senators to be orderly and to not take interjections either.

The other thing wrong in the good senator's question is when she references an $80 billion tax giveaway to big business or the big end of town—or whatever she said. Unless she thinks that a business generating more than $10 million in revenue—which is going to be hit for a six by Mr Shorten, as a result of his captain's call, imposing higher taxes on small business—is part of the big end of town then her question is simply another attempt to mislead the Australian people.

Let me just explain some basics of free market economics. If you get more investment in the generation of products and services that consumers want, businesses generating those products and services will hire more people in order to generate those products and services that people want. And if they are successful in selling those products and services that people want to those people, not only does that deliver a higher quality of life to consumers; it also means that, as businesses around Australia hire more people, there's more competition for workers across the Australian economy. Do you know what happens when there's more competition? Business has to pay more to secure their services, not because they want to out of the goodness of their hearts but because they have to. That is the fundamental law of supply and demand: if there is stronger demand for workers then people have to—

Adam Smith—here we go!

You see, now Senator Collins is criticising Adam Smith! (Time expired)

Senator Collins, a supplementary question.

For the record, I have not been criticising Adam Smith!

Government senators interjecting—

Order! On my right! Senators Fifield, Birmingham and Bushby! Order on my right!

He'll give me more time, surely?

Senator, I will call you to order when I think you've had 30 seconds. Senator Collins, please continue.

Thank you. Can the minister confirm that less than eight per cent of the BCA's member CEOs are prepared to increase investment in Australia if the Turnbull government is able to pass it's $80 billion tax cut for big business? Less than eight per cent say they'll increase investment.

That's the beautiful thing about competition. If big business is not prepared to invest more, there's opportunity for small business. On this side of the chamber we want smaller businesses to become bigger businesses. We understand that every big business today is a small business of yesteryear, and that that is actually the way a successful economy works: it provides the incentive for small businesses to become bigger and bigger businesses.

Let me read you another important quote:

… 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—

Senator Cameron, on a point of order.

Yes, a point of order on relevance. This goes to the issue of business saying that only eight per cent will actually invest in jobs and new investment. That's the question the minister should go to, instead of this rhetoric and nonsense.

Senator Cameron, a point of order is not a time to make a political point, as you did at the end. Senator Cormann is being relevant to the question.

I'm interested that Senator Cameron referred to this as rhetoric, because it was a quote from none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten! He said that putting a cap on company tax, limiting it to small business, would be a cap on growth. It would provide an incentive for business to downsize into higher— (Time expired)

Senator Collins, a final supplementary question.

When even business leaders won't commit to increase wages, create jobs or increase investment, why is the Turnbull government continuing to mislead Australians about the Turnbull government's $80 billion tax cut to big business?

Our commitment to a lower, more globally competitive business tax rate will deliver stronger growth, more investment, more jobs and higher wages. That is actually what none other than Mr Shorten used to say, and that's what none other than the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, used to say. As Bill Shorten said, very eloquently:

… 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.

Mr Shorten said:

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

We believe what Mr Shorten used to believe, and that is that a commitment to the free market, to free enterprise and to reward for effort is the best opportunity for all Australians today and into the future to get ahead.

Let's hear what you say!

Here we go—the sneering Labor Party dismisses a commitment to the free market as trickle-down economics. We are committed to the free market— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government is strengthening Australia's ability to monitor and protect our borders and contribute to regional security?

I am very pleased to get a constructive question from Senator Hume in relation to one of the government's key priorities, in which I know she has a strong interest. I can advise the Senate that the government is, as I indicated to Senator Whish-Wilson earlier, further strengthening Australia's ability to protect our maritime interests through the acquisition of the first of six MQ-4C Triton remotely piloted aircraft. These aircraft are a game changer for defence and a game changer for defence capability. Our maritime area covers approximately 10 per cent of the earth's service, which makes the provision of maritime patrol and response across such a vast area certainly a challenging exercise. The Triton is going to be capable of missions of over 24 hours on station while covering an area of over one million nautical square miles, which is equivalent to about the size of Western Australia, in one activity. It will provide Australia with a significantly enhanced ability to conduct search operations across significant areas of Australia's primary maritime areas of interest, including the Indian, Pacific and Southern oceans. Of note, the Triton is the first high-altitude, long-endurance, remotely-piloted aircraft system to be operated by the Australian Defence Force. It is important to note that there will always be a human remotely piloting these aircraft.

I am also pleased to advise that around $364 million will be invested into new facilities and infrastructure which will be constructed at RAAF Base Edinburgh and RAAF Base Tindall. The investment is further proof of the Turnbull government's commitment not just to creating a more capable Australian Defence Force but also to Australia's long-term security and our commitment to regional security and stability.

Senator Hume, a supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister advise how else the Turnbull coalition government is strengthening Australia's maritime patrol capability?

The Triton, as I outlined in my earlier response to Senator Hume, is a very, very important new capability. Even more importantly, it is going to be working closely in concert with our cutting-edge P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft. The Poseidon aircraft is currently being introduced into service, with seven of the 12 already operational. Together, the Triton and the Poseidon will work as complementary systems. They will significantly enhance our anti-submarine warfare and maritime strike capability as well as our ability to both monitor and secure Australia's maritime approaches, helping, importantly, to protect our maritime area from threats such as people smuggling and illegal fishing—very significant issues to our neighbours in the Pacific and in South-East Asia. When they are fully operational the Triton and the Poseidon will fly twice as many hours as the P-3 Orions they replace, greatly increasing that ability to monitor our maritime areas. While the Orions have served Australia well for more than 50 years, it is time for the change. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government is ensuring that the Triton remains at the cutting-edge of maritime surveillance capability?

I can advise that, as part of the investment, Australia is also going to enter into a $200 million cooperative program with the United States Navy, which is for the development, production and sustainment of the MQ-4C Triton. That follows on from the example of the equally successful cooperative program that we had with the US Navy for the Poseidon aircraft. This is an arrangement which will enable Australia to work more closely with the United States to develop the capability and effectively manage both integration risks and through-life sustainment costs. These development programs underscore the depth of our alliance with the United States, which again is underpinned by strong cooperation in defence industry and in capability development. Australia is one of only a very few nations with which the United States has shared the Triton and Poseidon technology, so it is a very important engagement for us. They will also ensure that we meaningfully contribute to the ongoing development of the platforms to remain at the cutting edge. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Minister, on 12 June, while attending a meeting of the red tape committee in Brisbane, I was present when the committee received submissions about child care in Australia. At this meeting I asked the representative of the Department of Education and Training about two women who are at the centre of an alleged $5.7 million family day care fraud, but I failed to obtain an informative response. Since the department appears unable to provide any clear information on this issue, can the minister detail what the process was that allowed a departmental official to sign off on 11 cheques totalling $5.7 million for some 1,600 children who were enrolled on the same day by the same person?

I thank Senator Anning for his question. Senator Anning has asked about a particular and specific instance, and I will more than happily take the particulars, in terms of that instance, on notice and, if I can, provide further information to Senator Anning about that individual case.

What I can inform Senator Anning, through you, Mr President, is that the Turnbull government has taken a number of steps over a period of time to ensure there is a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, particularly in the family day care sector. Our actions have seen significant savings accrued. Over the course of the first six months of this year, we delivered an integrity surge that generated savings of around $1 billion in claims that would otherwise have been wrongly made. We did that through cooperation with different departments, between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, data-matching to identify those who may be doing the wrong thing and making erroneous or illegal claims.

We have suspended many services, and we have upped compliance activity. When we took office, just a few hundred checks on family day care services were conducted per annum. Today more than 4,000 checks on services are conducted per annum to ensure we have a much tougher audit regime that's catching more people out and leading to the suspension of services. It has seen dozens of matters referred for legal action and resulted in a number of individuals either facing criminal charges or having been convicted and serving time as a result of their defrauding of the Australian taxpayer. We will not tolerate it. We have taken whatever action we can. Our new childcare system, which is coming into effect on 2 July, has stronger safeguards and a better data system to help ensure we prevent this even more effectively in the future.

Senator Anning, a supplementary question.

It stuns me that the minister is not aware of this particular case. But, given what appears to be a disastrous failure of fiduciary responsibility by the department, can the minister assure the Australian taxpayer that there aren't any more instances of funding misuse, and, if there are, to what extent?

What I can assure Senator Anning, all senators and the Australian public is that we take compliance very seriously. On our estimates, the range of compliance measures we've taken, in terms of tightened regulation, increased compliance checks and audits and, ultimately, suspensions or cancellation of services, have saved around $2.4 billion over the last few years and into the future, in terms of what could have been wrongfully claimed subsidies. We'll continue to take that zero-tolerance approach.

As I was indicating at the conclusion of my last answer, the new childcare subsidy, which is coming into effect on 2 July, has tighter regulatory arrangements around it that will better enable officials to control the flow of money to service providers. It has a better IT and data-integrity system around it that will better enable officials to identify where rorting may happen and shut it down instantly, and to make sure that this type of rigorous action, including throwing the book at and charging individuals, occurs where it can. (Time expired)

Senator Anning, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister tell the Senate whether the people responsible for this horrendous oversight are still employed in his department?

Again, I took the particulars in relation to this case on notice, and we will provide that information back to Senator Anning. All I can say is that we've put more resources behind compliance, auditing and integrity checks than has ever been the case before. As I indicated in the primary answer, when we took office there were just a few hundred audits undertaken each year and there had been zero suspensions or cancellations. We're now undertaking more than 4,000 audits each year and we've engaged in more than 100 suspensions or cancellations just through the six-month integrity surge and many more in addition to that.

Officials are taking very serious steps not just to drive out of the system people who are doing the wrong thing, but, where they can, they are working with the Australian Federal Police, which has seen charges laid, successful convictions and individuals thrown into jail, as a result of their ripping off of the Australian taxpayer—something which we will not tolerate and we will continue to tighten the net on.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Prime Minister has expressed his government's commitment to a technology agnostic approach to energy. Why then is Minister Frydenberg now working on an add-on energy policy to address concerns about the NEG and the lack of support for coal?

Firstly, I don't accept the premise of the question. Secondly, of course, our National Energy Guarantee is a technology agnostic approach to lower electricity prices, to increase electricity reliability and to achieve emissions reductions in a way that is economically responsible. What I would say to the good senator is that on our side of politics we actually engage in policy discussion. That's a novel thing. We engage in policy discussion in order to get to the best possible way forward for the Australian people.

The Labor Party members are treated like mushrooms by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten. In the Labor Party, a decision is made to hit small businesses across Australia for six, impose higher taxes, hurt working families and send jobs overseas. That sort of decision is made by a desperate Leader of the Opposition focused on saving his own job and putting the jobs of millions of Australian workers at risk. That sort of decision is made without even going to the shadow cabinet, the shadow ERC or the shadow Labor—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, I trust David Speers. You trust the journalists—

On direct relevance: the question is, why then is Minister Frydenberg working on an add-on energy policy to address concerns about the NEG and the lack of support for coal, which was reported in The Guardian and, I think, elsewhere. The point of order, as I said, is on direct relevance. How can a discussion about the opposition be directly relevant to that question?

You have reminded Senator Cormann of the second half of the question. I'll remind him of the first half and draw his attention to both in answering it.

As I said right up-front, we reject the premise of the question. There is no lack of support for coal. We're focused on a policy framework that provides certainty to investors so we can increase energy supplies across Australia in a technology neutral fashion. Increasing energy supplies across Australia will have to bring down power prices. That's what we're focused on. We know it's very important. We know that Australian families and Australian businesses need lower power prices. We know, as a result of the policies that in particular were pursued during the Rudd and Gillard years in government, that power prices have continued to go up, and we're working very hard to bring them down. Minister Frydenberg has been working very hard to make that happen. Of course, the Labor Party is not interested in the answers. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, a supplementary question.

() (): Dr Kerry Schott, Chair of the government's own Energy Security Board has said, 'There would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant because the cost of coal is always going to be more than the cost of wind and sun.' Can the minister confirm that Minister Frydenberg is ignoring Dr Schott's advice to satisfy the hard Right of the coalition party room? (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'll remind senators on both sides of the chamber of my plea for silence during the question.

In the Liberal-National Parties we talk about policies and we're not frightened to engage in policy debate, unlike the leader of the Labor Party who is too scared even to take a proposal for higher tax on small business to his Labor caucus. The government's National Energy Guarantee will cut electricity prices by ending subsidies for energy, which are passed on to all consumers, of course, putting prices up; create a level playing field that ensures that all types of energy are part of Australia's energy mix; provide certainty for investors, because more certainty will mean more supply and in turn lower prices; reduce volatility by ensuring that reliable energy sources which provide power when it's needed can be guaranteed; and ensure that Australians will be $300 a year better off than they would be under Labor. Under Labor, not only will Australians earn less but they will have to pay more. Not only will they earn less—because the economy will be weaker; there'll be fewer jobs, higher unemployment and lower wages—but they will have to pay more for their electricity. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, a final supplementary question.

Twenty-four hours after the most recent coalition push for coal, Minister Frydenberg has declared that he would 'welcome a new coal-fired power station'. Why have the Prime Minister and Minister Frydenberg again caved in to the far Right of the coalition party room?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course we would welcome a new coal-fired power station. There is nothing new about that. The Prime Minister is on the record saying that. The National Energy Guarantee actually provides the certainty that investors into a future coal-fired power station need in order to ensure that they can have certainty around that investment. We are not ideological; we're not religious about these things. We are focused on bringing down the costs of electricity for working families around Australia and ensuring that businesses around Australia can be competitive internationally. And we are focused on making sure that the lights stay on.

If you look at Labor jurisdictions around Australia, not the least of which is the discredited Labor state government in South Australia which was voted out of government lately, they couldn't even keep the lights on. Our focus is on making sure that we bring electricity prices down, that we keep the lights on and that we meet our emissions reduction targets in a way that is economically responsible. (Time expired)

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Vanuatu, led by the Hon. Jothan Napat MP. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Minister Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on the range of measures the Turnbull government and regulators have introduced to boost consumer protections during the transition to the National Broadband Network?

Thank you, Senator Smith. Why, yes I can! Over the past year the government and regulators have put a comprehensive set of measures in place to support the customer experience on the NBN. Under the direction of the government, the Australian Communications and Media Authority is introducing enforceable standards, backed by penalties, to address hurdles experienced by some consumers and business when migrating to the NBN. In April this year the government released the terms of reference for a far-reaching telecommunications safeguards review. Mr President, you may be aware that the Labor Party announced last Sunday what they put forward as measures, and it would be fair to describe the announcement of those opposite as playing catch-up. It approximated a thought bubble on behalf of Ms Rowland. It did not constitute a developed policy.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator O'Neill.

And there's just one little point that those opposite failed to appreciate.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator O'Neill!

When those opposite said the ACCC should have a look at wholesale service standards, there's just one little point those opposite failed to appreciate, and that is that the ACCC is already undertaking an inquiry into wholesale service standards. This work is on top of those existing penalties and rebates that exist between the NBN and retailers. When you couple these with the measures that the ACCC have already put in place, it really does put paid to the persistent refrain from those opposite that NBN speeds are not what they should be.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator O'Neill, I've called you to order numerous times during one answer. Senator Smith.

I have a supplementary question, Mr President. Can the minister explain how these practical and effective measures compare with alternative policy proposals?

Yes. At the weekend, the member for Greenway, with great fanfare and a lovely three-minute video blog, presented the opposition's consumer regime.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator O'Neill!

Now, those opposite talked about an NBN guarantee but I can advise colleagues that Labor's proposition guaranteed precisely nothing. I looked, in Labor's announcement, for the time frames that they were proposing to repair end-user faults. Was there a time frame proposed by those opposite to repair end-user faults? There wasn't. Was there a time frame for the number of business days to connect a service after an order was placed? There wasn't. Labor's NBN guarantee guarantees precisely nothing.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! We have one question left.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong! Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister advise how the progress of the National Broadband Network rollout under this government compares to that of the previous government?

You gave them copper!

Senator O'Neill!

Under those opposite, the only guarantee was that consumers would wait longer and would pay more for their NBN connections. By the time the Labor Party left office, the National Broadband Network rollout was one million premises behind schedule. There were just 51,000 premises that were connected to the NBN under Labor. I'm not surprised that, when those opposite were in office, they had no interest in issues of guarantees or service standards, because they missed their targets by a million premises. Today, the NBN are connecting 50,000 premises every 10 working days, and the next milestone, of four million connections, is just around the corner. Under this government, Australians are getting the NBN and the consumer experience is improving. (Time expired)

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

I would like to respond to the question asked by Senator Wong in the chamber last Thursday, following reports in the media relating to a member of the public being asked to remove or cover up clothing that displayed a union logo. All people entering Parliament House are subject to security procedures, and prohibited items are not to be brought into Parliament House. Items that might cause danger to people or damage property, might be used to disrupt order or decorum or compromise security arrangements must be cloaked before entering into Parliament House. These items include weapons, aerosol or paint cans, laser pointers and obvious protest paraphernalia. Protest paraphernalia, including clothing with specific messages, if allowed into Parliament House, may, depending on the circumstances, have the effect of bringing the protest into Parliament House and can be used to disrupt the order of the parliament. Operating Policies and Procedures No. 10.5 notes that if a person is found inside the building with a prohibited item, Parliamentary Security Service staff ask that person to surrender that item.

I'm advised that, on 19 June, a protest organised by UnionsACT was conducted on the authorised assembly area within the parliamentary precinct. On 20 June, I'm advised a PSS officer noticed potential protest material or paraphernalia being taken into the building through the main front screening point by a small group. The PSS officer spoke to a passholder and the visitors who owned the material before contacting the team leader. One of the visitors was carrying a poster that was promptly passed to the passholder who accompanied the group. The clothing worn by the visitors displayed material that related to the demonstration of the previous day. After speaking with the PSS officer, the team leader took into account these matters and made an assessment that their clothing was potentially protest paraphernalia. The clothing in question contained more than a small logo. Where a personal assessment is made that an item of clothing worn by a person may be protest paraphernalia, they are requested to cover it, change the item or turn it inside out.

The team leader approached the visitors and requested that clothing displaying protest material be covered, changed or turned inside out. The team leader suggested to the group that they could use the nearest bathrooms for changing purposes. After some discussion, I'm advised the visitors appeared to comply before leaving the area. I'm advised the PSS team leader was asked if his decision was because their clothes displayed union logos. The team leader explained that displaying a union logo was not the issue. The issue with the clothing was the slogans and images contained on the clothing. From the inquiries made as a result of this question, and the media report, the department has determined that the manner in which the relevant security service team leader addressed the situation was professional and courteous.

As is evident from the many union representatives that attend Parliament House on a regular basis, there is no policy precluding access by association, nor does the policy prohibit the display of logos. Parliament House receives thousands of visitors each day. The Parliamentary Security Service officers bear a significant responsibility for interpreting policies and making judgements at a point in time which balance the right of people to access the building while ensuring that proper decorum is maintained. My advice is that this particular policy has been in place since January 2009, and it has not since been reviewed. All security policies are currently on a review program by the Department of Parliamentary Services, which commenced last year.

Mr President, I appreciate you providing a response to the chamber. The opposition will perhaps provide further information in the near future. Can I just flag at the outset that there are a number of facts that are contained in the statement that do not accord with the information that we have been provided with, but we will make those inquiries and deal with it in the appropriate way.

Thank you, Senator Wong. I'm happy to pursue matters if they're brought to my attention. You're quite right: some of the matters in the article are contested by the information that I was advised with.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally, Sterle and Collins today relating to corporate taxation.

The first thing I have to say, in taking note, is here we again have Senator Cormann with another triumph of ideology over the facts. Ideology is just being backed out nonstop, incessantly, by this senator in complete contradiction to the facts.

Senator Cormann denies the fact that Republican Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio had rubbished the claims that corporate tax cuts would lead to an increase in wages. Senator Rubio referenced the experience in the United States, which recently also slashed corporate tax. He said:

In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker.

That's the reality in the United States. That's also the reality in Canada, where the tax cuts did not result in more jobs, did not result in more investment. What it did result in was share buybacks, money going into the pockets of individuals and massive salary increases for the executives of the corporations in Canada and the US. That's exactly what happened.

What Senator Cormann needs to understand is that there is no invisible hand of the market out there. This nonsense that we hear all the time that the market will self-regulate, that the market will balance—what a load of rubbish! For the Leader of the Government in the Senate to stand here, after we've seen the global financial crisis, after we've seen the behaviour of corporations around the world, and defend that sort of behaviour and argue that that's the market at work is an absolute nonsense.

Senator Cormann just gets up and goes into top gear; he just talks and talks and talks. Unfortunately, not much of it makes much sense. It might make a bit of sense to the ideologues in the rabble of a government that sits across the other side of this chamber, but it doesn't make much sense to the pensioners across the country who have watched the attacks by this coalition on their pensions. It doesn't make much sense to the underprivileged and those that are in need of support in this country, who are being attacked by this rabble of a government. It doesn't make much sense to the workers out there that are being denied their capacity to negotiate with their employers for a wage increase.

For Senator Cormann to get up here and say: 'Well, you know, if we give more money to big business and if we hand $17 billion to the banks, everything's going to be okay. There'll be more jobs. There'll be more investment,' is absolute nonsense. That is not what's happened, and that's exactly why the Business Council of Australia refused to sign off on a commitment that they would create more jobs or that they would invest more. The Business Council know that that is not what happens. The Business Council know that, if you give these tax cuts to businesses in this country, the bulk of it will go back to individual shareholders and go back to the executives of the companies. It won't flow through to ordinary workers, who would end up going out and would need that money to spend. The money will go to the banks. The money will go to the big end of town. The money goes into banks. The money goes into family trust funds. The money goes into all of the areas that will not create more activity in the economy.

If you want to actually get the economy moving, you'll give more tax cuts to the low paid, you'll look after pensioners and you'll look after people that need the money, the people that will go out and spend that money to create jobs and create economic activity. This triumph of ideology by Senator Cormann over the facts defies reality; it defies what's happening out there. What happened in the global financial crisis? Workers lost their houses. Workers lost their jobs. That's the market at work. (Time expired)

What the Senate has just heard is more unmitigated nonsense from Senator Cameron. In fact, Senator Cameron's one true statement in this parliament in all of his time here was when he rightly accused his fellow colleagues in the ALP caucus of being lobotomised zombies. Remember that? Senator Cameron was saying that nobody discusses anything in the Labor Party caucus. He said that they were all lobotomised zombies; they took whatever the then ministers said as true.

Senator Cameron, I often confess to this parliament that I'm not terribly bright, but I can work out the enterprise tax plan. Senator Cameron perhaps hasn't caught up with this yet, but many international competitors, including Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Israel, Japan and France, have reduced their company taxes. The US slashed business tax from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. If the Australian rate remains stranded at 30 per cent, Australia will have one of the highest tax rates in the OECD, making it harder for Australian companies to compete in a fiercely competitive global market. International investors will take their capital and the resultant jobs to countries where it is cheaper to do business.

What the ALP and the lobotomised zombies on the other side want to do is create jobs in the United States, in Norway, in Israel, in France and in the United Kingdom. As I say, you don't have to be terribly clever to work this out. If a company has $100 million to spend on building a factory to make widgets and is going to make $10 million profit as a result of it, and when it looks around can see that it's going to pay 30 per cent tax in Australia on its profit but only 21 per cent in the United States and less in other countries—they can build the same factory, they can make the same widgets and they would make the same profit, but they'd pay more tax in Australia—where is this international investor going to go? Clearly, not to Australia. Clearly, they will go to a country where it is cheaper to make the widgets and get the same profit, because they will pay less tax and more money to their shareholders.

The ALP policy is all about transferring Australian jobs to overseas countries. I don't understand why the ALP doesn't work this out now. Mr Shorten used to understand that, because it was only a few short years ago that Mr Shorten was advocating for lower corporate taxes for this very reason. He then understood that you can't compete in a very tight international market where you are charging international investors more than your competitors, and so Mr Shorten was very vocal in those days in promoting this. In fact, that was about the time, as I recall, that Senator Cameron made his famous description of his colleagues in the ALP caucus as being lobotomised zombies. I assume that, when Mr Shorten was advocating for lower corporate taxes, that the lobotomised zombies—Senator Cameron's term—simply sat there dumbfounded and agreed with Mr Shorten.

Mr Shorten thinks he can fool the Australian public with this politics of envy and with this, 'We'll give you everything you ask' approach that he's currently adopted. He thinks that that might win him a few votes at an election, but most Australians are not fools. They can see right through Mr Shorten and the fact that a few years ago he thought it was a good idea. The lobotomised zombies agreed with him a few years ago but now, because they think they see a political advantage, they've changed their approach. It won't work. The Australian people are not that stupid.

In a rare moment of agreement with Senator Macdonald, I do agree that he's not very bright, because, if the logic of his argument were correct, how is it possible that we've had 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth? How is it possible that, if we're in such dire circumstances, we need to match, in a Dutch auction, whoever's got the lowest tax rate to be able to live and be successful in Australia? The facts don't speak to that.

If I go back to Senator Cormann's response, he may well have a point that Rubio's an outlier in the Republican Party. He was a presidential candidate though. If you look at Bloomberg, 60 per cent of the tax cut gains will go to shareholders compared to 15 per cent to employees. Morgan Stanley analysts found that 43 per cent of the tax cut will go to stock buybacks and dividends and 13 per cent will go to pay rises, bonuses and employee benefits. Just Capitals's analysis of 121 Russell 1,000 companies found that 50 per cent of the tax savings will go to shareholders, compared to 20 per cent directed to job creation and capital investment and six per cent to workers.

On this side of the chamber, every week that we're not in parliament we meet with workers. I can tell you the story of any number of workers who are waiting for that permanent job, perhaps with the Port Adelaide council, where there are respectable pay and conditions enjoyed, but they're in the labour hire contingent, which has vastly different hours to those in the permanent workforce. There is no trickle-down effect coming to those people—not in the informal economy; it's a formal part of the employment sector—those without permanent jobs, those with casual jobs and those with part-time jobs. For someone who's applied for a job in my office or someone who works 25 hours a week at Coles stacking shelves—but would dearly like to get a well-paid job—this tax cut is not going to trickle down to them, and anybody who believes it believes in the tooth fairy or some such other fallacy.

There is a simple reality here: it's not in the best interests of companies to suddenly start handing out wage increases. The job of a vibrant union movement is to force companies to negotiate into fairer enterprise agreements. This government spends most of its time trying to destroy trade unions in this country when all trade unions do is provide that equalising equilibrium in the capitalist system. We and union representatives go in and fight for fairness, fight for wage growth and get that share back for the workers so they can look after their families.

I have never met a CEO who thought it his job to actually hand out a pay rise. Every CEO in this country would not be doing their shareholders a service if they suddenly said, 'We'll give them an extra 10 bucks an hour.' It won't happen. You know it won't happen. You're batting for your side of town: power, position and privilege. That's who you're batting for. Be honest about it. Own up to it. That's your job over there, and you do it very well. So don't pretend that you're looking after the working class or the middle class or anybody who's not in a position of power and privilege.

Senator Cormann has his mantra. He's unshakeable on his mantra. He says one thing and does another—always. He just keeps battering with that battering ram of his, but he's for position, power and privilege. He wouldn't know a worker if he fell over one. He certainly wouldn't know a casual worker on $18 an hour. If he believes that any CEO in this country is suddenly going to wake up tomorrow and say, 'I've got less tax to pay; everybody's got a pay rise,' he's dreaming—and we ought to tell him he's dreaming. But he knows he's dreaming. That's the really awful thing. Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann knows exactly what he's doing here. He's batting for power, position and privilege, and he does not give much of a stuff about the working people in this country, whose wages growth is so low. That low wages growth feeds into all of the other parameters of our society. It feeds into all of the other negative aspects in our economy and all of the other negative aspects or outcomes in our society. We need a living wage. We need an increase in Newstart. We need an increase in so many areas so that people can get up in the morning, look after themselves, feed and clothe their families and enjoy a bit of respectability in an economy that's fair and shares the income around and doesn't hand it all to the big end of town, like this disgraceful tax cut will do. (Time expired)

The one thing I noted from listening to this debate and observing question time today is that Labor's form, as to repeating falsehoods in the hope that people believe them, is well and truly on show again today. The notion that keeping taxes higher or indeed jacking them up higher is going to result in higher wages for workers just doesn't stack up either. I don't know where this idea is coming from. In terms of the falsehoods being peddled, we heard it last week with the ABC being sold off by the government, we heard it at the election with Medicare being sold off and we're hearing it now with keeping tax cuts and reserving them for the big end of town. It's just nonsense. It makes no sense and it doesn't stack up to any level of scrutiny.

Last week we did have the good news in being able to hand some tax relief to hardworking Australians right across the country—something that the opposition opposed. Labor didn't want to see the fruits of people's labour being enjoyed by them—money back in their pocket; money for them to spend as they see fit. That is something that we on this side of the chamber believe is the right way to go when it comes to handling people's money—allowing them to spend it rather than the government taking it off them and spending it on big government programs. And this week we hold out hope that the Senate will pass the much-needed tax relief for business in this country, to put our country's businesses on a globally competitive footing so that they can compete with the countries that Senator Macdonald mentioned in his contribution a little earlier on and so that those businesses don't make decisions to move offshore or to reduce their employment workforces here. That's what we need to be doing. That's what this is about.

But it's clear that the opposition, instead of being focused on the people we represent in this place and the communities that elect us to this place, are more focused on the political games down here. They're more focused on the Canberra bubble than on, say, the electors of Braddon in my home state, who would be big beneficiaries of the enterprise tax plan if it's realised to its full extent. The proof of this, as Senator Cormann mentioned today, is the captain's call made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to what they would do if they won the next election after these tax cuts passed the parliament—that is, they would bring tax levels back up for businesses with a turnover of at least $10 million and perhaps even businesses with a turnover of $2 million. It's astounding. Instead of maintaining this competitive tax environment, they're going to jack taxes back up for businesses with a turnover of around $2 million. There wouldn't be many small family grocery stores and businesses like that that would be missing out in being caught up in this tax rate.

Speaking of Braddon, I did a bit of research and was able to look into the businesses in the electorate of Braddon, which, of course, will be going to a by-election on 28 July—and I wish Brett Whiteley, that great former member and candidate, all the best.

A very good person.

He is very, very good, absolutely. But, in terms of the businesses that would be impacted by Mr Shorten and his captain's call to jack up taxes on small to medium businesses in Australia, there are 24 businesses in the electorate of Braddon alone that would get caught up in his plan to jack up taxes. One of them, Stubbs Constructions, a mid-sized business with 63 employees on the north-west coast of Tasmania, is something those opposite would class as a nasty big business at the big end of town. It has 63 local employees in Braddon. The managing director of that business has confirmed that, if the tax cuts were to go through and he and his business were beneficiaries of the tax plan, he would invest more. He'd employ more people; he has made that commitment.

On that point, there are 164 businesses statewide that would be penalised by Bill Shorten's captain's call to jack up taxes and penalise those people who take a risk and actually generate economic activity. We all know why he's doing this, of course. We've seen the would-be Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, snapping at the heels of the current Leader of the Opposition He has decried the antibusiness and antijobs rhetoric and policies that Mr Shorten's pushing. That's why we have a captain's call; he's desperate. He's trying to lock in his position. He'll do whatever it takes to get a headline or get a vote, even if it is at the cost of jobs in places like Braddon and Longman. I've just talked about 63 jobs. I hope that whoever speaks next from the opposition—be it Senator Keneally—will guarantee those 63 jobs and implore the Leader of the Opposition to back down on this terrible policy he has announced today. (Time expired)

I rise to take part in this debate to take note of the answers provided by Minister Cormann to questions posed by me, Senator Sterle and Senator Collins. Many of the questions today focused on the Business Council of Australia. While Senator Duniam was so keen to hear about commitments written in stone and firmly given, he might have inquired of the Business Council of Australia, when it made a 'commitment'—and I use that in quotation marks—to the Senate were the Senate to pass the corporate tax cut: what will the Business Council of Australia do? They will—wait for it, folks—invest more. Not one job was committed to. Not one specific investment was committed to. There was not one project that they said would go ahead. They simply said, 'We will invest more.' If Senator Duniam is so concerned about the voters of Braddon and voters in his home state of Tasmania having that ironclad commitment, he should try to get a commitment out of the Business Council of Australia as to what they would do if they were given a corporate tax cut, because 'invest more' is not a commitment. It's just two words that really convey very little. They don't convey anything specific about what those companies will do.

When the BCA was asked in a Senate inquiry if it could name a country—just one country in the world—where a cut in the corporate tax rate had led to a rise in wages, do you know what it said? It said that it would have to take that on notice. The BCA has already declared itself the campaigning arm of the Turnbull government for the corporate tax cut. You would think that this campaigning arm, the Business Council of Australia, would have an answer to this very basic question: if you give a corporate tax cut, where does it lead to a wage rise? There is not one country in the world that the BCA can point to where a corporate tax cut has led to a wage rise for workers. We saw that played out again today in the answers given by Senator Cormann in question time.

What we know from the answers given by Senator Cormann in question time is that he completely rejects that there is any evidence whatsoever that shows that corporate tax rates only benefit shareholders and corporate executives. He rejects that. He says there is evidence somewhere in the world, apparently, that corporate tax cuts somehow benefit workers. But this flies in the face of the evidence that we see in the United States today. We hear over and over from this Turnbull government—from the Treasurer, the finance minister, the Prime Minister and speakers here today in this take-note debate—that Australia has to somehow cut its corporate tax rate because the United States has cut its corporate tax rate. If they want to cite the United States as an example we should follow, maybe we should look at the evidence of what is happening in the United States. What do we know of what is happening in the United States since they cut their corporate tax rate? We know that share buybacks are at a record high.

We also know that companies like Harley-Davidson, right after getting the corporate tax cut, cut their workforce. In fact, they shut down a plant and had a net loss of 350 jobs. And what did they do just days later? They transacted a share buyback of several million dollars. They had a net loss of 350 jobs, they bought back 15 million shares and they announced a dividend increase. This is what the evidence shows in the United States.

Now, I picked on Harley-Davidson because President Trump himself has held this company up as one of the gold standards—one of the great ones 'bringing the jobs back to America'. Well, they're not. The Trump administration has given a corporate tax cut. Who has benefitted? Shareholders and CEOs. Who has lost out? The working people of America. This is the example that the Turnbull government wants us to follow and these are the consequences of that action.

What we heard about today in question time was no less a person than Marco Rubio, a Republican senator—a former Republican candidate for President—who has told the truth to the American people. He has told them the truth. He said that when it comes to corporate tax cuts in the United States they have seen that the companies have bought back shares. They have seen that few have given out bonuses, and that, 'There is no evidence whatsoever that the money has been massively poured back into the American worker.' Well, if that is what's happening in America, you can only imagine what's going to happen in Australia: the same thing, because this government stands up for their mates—the big end of town. They stand up for the shareholders and they're not standing up for the working people of Australia.

Question agreed to.

I rise to take note of answers to my questions asked to the defence minister, Minister Payne. And while we're on the subject of throwing around a couple of hundred billion dollars of taxpayers' money: we saw $144 billion of personal tax cuts pass this chamber just a few days ago and we're very shortly going to be debating $80 billion in a corporate handout—corporate welfare for some of the biggest and most profitable corporations on the planet.

But let's talk about a couple of hundred billion dollars that the government plan to spend on military equipment, on Defence assets. Just two budgets ago, we saw the biggest increase in Defence spending since the Second World War. The government outlined they would move Defence spending to two per cent of GDP. Today, the media announced that the government would be acquiring seven Triton drones at the cost of $7 billion. Only two years ago, in its white paper, the government said that they would be acquiring seven drones at a cost of between $3 billion and $4 billion—$3 billion to $4 billion, that's a billion dollars on three. That's nearly 30 per cent of variation in cost. It's quite significant, and I noticed at the time that it was not just to do with Triton but was also to do with a number of other expenditures around military assets. But two years later they're acquiring six of these drones—so one less—for $7 billion. That's a more than 100 per cent blowout in costs for one piece of military hardware.

The government is planning to spend a couple of hundred billion dollars of taxpayers' money on new submarines, on the LAND 400 and a whole range of other military expenditure programs. The minister today, in response to my question, couldn't or wouldn't outline why Defence spending on this Triton drone had blown out so significantly on their original estimate. What trust do the Australian people have if our government can't get it right on one piece of military equipment, and we're looking at nearly $200 billion of expenditure? And where's the debate in this place? As usual, it takes the Greens to ask the question on Defence procurement or military expenditure. No-one else in this place does.

Speaking of submarines, it's like silent running—both the major parties in lockstep, supporting the troops, refusing to ask questions on matters related to military expenditure. And while we're talking about jobs, which is what I've heard from the last four take note participants in here today, how many jobs are the Australian taxpayers going to get for the $7 billion worth of expenditure that's going to go to an American company, Northrop Grumman, to make these drones? How many Australian jobs are we going to get out of that? How many do we get out of the tens of billions of dollars that we have thrown at the Joint Strike Fighter program in the last 10 years? What a great success that's been! Let's give another $7 billion to a large American—one of the most profitable weapons manufacturers on this planet. When are we actually going to get the scrutiny? We don't even think or talk about whether we need the drones, let alone the costs of them. We often do talk about where that money's going to be spent, how many jobs are going to be created for it and which electorate is going to receive that funding, but we very rarely discuss whether we need this military hardware in the first place.

I would like to finish my take note contribution on my last question. Clearly, the minister outlined in her response to Senator Hume that this is going to be used for Operation Sovereign Borders, so they have let the cat out of the bag. We have an over-the-horizon radar that's already effective in detecting boats in our waters. This drone is designed to be able to go around the world, through and over the South China Sea, and poke its nose around in our region. Why are we contributing to tensions in our region and a regional arms race when we should be doing everything we can to de-escalate tensions in our region? Bad idea. Turn back.

Question agreed to.

It is with regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 2 June 2018 of the honourable Joseph Max Berinson QC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Perth, Western Australia from 1969 to 1975. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

I move:

That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 2 June 2018, of the Honourable Joseph Max Berinson QC, a former Member of the House of Representatives for the division of Perth and Minister for the Environment in the Whitlam Government, and State Member of Parliament and Attorney-General of Western Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Attaining political success at both the state and the federal levels, and working for his community which he cherished, the Honourable Joseph Max Berinson QC's life was one of significant achievement. Born opposite Perth's Hyde Park in Highgate on 7 January 1932, Joe was the youngest of three children to Jewish immigrant parents, Shulem 'Samuel' and Rivka 'Rebecca'. Though he grew up deeply involved in the local Jewish community, the suburban Perth of his youth was a world away from the Turkish Palestine that his mother and father had left years before. His mother's experience of hardship would inform his sensibilities as a proud member of Australia's Jewish community.

Studying at Highgate Primary School before securing a scholarship to the distinguished Perth Modern School, Joe went on to attain has professional qualification in pharmacy in 1953. He worked in that field for several years before deciding, in the mid-1960s, that a pivot towards law would prove more fruitful. It says something for Joe's talent and energy that he so deftly shifted professions midstream. In fact, when he graduated from the University of Western Australia with his bachelor of laws in 1971, he won the prestigious JA Wood prize for the best student in law and the humanities. This is even more impressive when one considers that, at the time, he was serving in the federal parliament. Indeed, he could often be found delving into legal textbooks while flying between Perth and Canberra or studying in the Parliamentary Library, late into the night, after the House had risen.

Joe was also a devoted servant of Perth's Jewish community, pushing for the purchase of land in the Yokine-Dianella district that today hosts the Maccabi sports and culture club, the Maurice Zeffert Home for the elderly and Carmel School. Decades on, these institutions still sit at the heart of Perth's Jewish community, with Carmel School marking his recent passing with a tribute to:

… a giant of vision, a giant in generosity of time, wealth and spirit.

Some others may reflect that his messaging skills were sharpened, at least in part, by time spent as the co-editor of The Maccabean newspaper, which services the Jewish community in Perth.

In 1953 Joe was invited to become a member of the WA Labor Party, and he joined its Mount Lawley branch. Decades later, he reflected that he approached the Labor Party with no socialist ideology but, instead, with a firm focus on pragmatism and an intense dislike of the then active Communist Party and its motives. In the turbulent years that followed the 1955 ALP split, Joe navigated sectarian intra-party tensions between Catholics and Protestants from his unique position as a Jewish member. With time, his political involvement increased and he became a state vice-president. On 9 September 1958 he married Jeanette Bekhor, whom he had met through the Zionist youth league. Together they would raise three daughters and a son: Jill, Linda, Ruth and David.

Having stood unsuccessfully for the seat of Swan at the 1963 federal election, in 1969 Joe contested the seat of Perth for the Labor Party and won it with a convincing swing of 12.2 per cent. In his maiden speech, he eschewed policy minutiae and, instead, articulated his vision for Australia's changing federal system. Perhaps uniquely at the time, this was a Western Australian voice that welcomed the growing role of the Commonwealth. He advocated for its further involvement in such spaces as health, education and transport.

Within the federal parliament, Joe took on a number of roles, serving as Deputy Chairman of Committees from early 1973 until his elevation to Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees in February 1975, a role in which he would remain until his further promotion to the cabinet. Among other committee roles, he put his professional experience to good use on the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits between 1970 and 1972. Within his electorate, Joe focused on a range of local constituent issues, including helping the incoming community of Burmese immigrants, who, in the context of Australia's changing immigration system, were making Perth their home at that time.

In the tumultuous political year of 1975, Joe was promoted to the cabinet, succeeding Gough Whitlam, who had stood in for Jim Cairns, as Minister for the Environment in July 1975. However, his time in the executive was cut short when he was defeated at the 1975 federal election that brought an end to the Whitlam government. But Joe's political career was far from over. His short tenure in the executive had inspired him, and decades later he would reflect that, 'There is nothing to compare with being in cabinet, in terms of actually doing something.' During this time, Joe completed his articles and practised law.

Briefly despondent after failing to secure federal preselection, his course changed at the suggestion of Kim Beazley Jr, who prompted him to run for the WA Legislative Council. Soon after, Joe was elected to the council at the 1980 state election, initially serving as a member for the North East Metropolitan region before representing the North Central Metropolitan and the North Metropolitan regions over the years that followed.

Joe had returned to public life with the full intent of making a mark in cabinet. He would not be disappointed. In opposition, he served as the opposition spokesman on legal matters in the council and on parliamentary and electoral reform. These topics were important to WA Labor at the 1983 election. Upon the election of the Burke Labor government that same year, he became its Attorney-General.

The years that followed were busy, with Joe often representing the Premier and Deputy Premier on key bills in the council. Among other things, he pursued incremental reforms to the Western Australia Criminal Code, informed in part by the expansive commentary that had been provided by the Murray report in 1983. He was a fixture of WA politics during that era and remained as Attorney-General under the premierships of Brian Burke, Peter Dowding and Carmen Lawrence. In 1988, while still serving as Attorney-General, his legal prowess was formally recognised with his appointment as a Queen's Counsel. In 1993 he retired from the ministry and the parliament following the election of the Court Liberal-National government.

The decades that followed afforded Joe more time for other pursuits, including his service on the superannuation commission and his diligent work as president of the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia between 2001 and 2005. As the son of humble immigrants who went on to serve with distinction at both the state and federal level, Joe Berinson's life speaks to his talent and energy, just as it does to the remarkable opportunities that this great country of ours affords its citizens.

Despite these achievements, Joe's modesty and service mentality were clear throughout his life, as was the love that he gave his family whenever he was away from the political scrum. His obituary notice, posted in The West Australian on 4 June of this year, lauds him as being:

At once brilliant and modest … a leader and a servant of his community who in life did that which is asked of man - to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with G-d.

To Joe's wife, Jeanette, his four children, Jill, Linda, Ruth and David, his 15 grandchildren and one great-grandchild, and all of his loved ones—on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate I offer my sincerest condolences.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of one of our own, the Hon. Joseph Max Berinson, who passed away on 2 June 2018 at the age of 86. I commence by conveying the Labor Party's condolences to relatives and friends of Joseph Berinson.

Joe Berinson was the pharmacist turned lawyer who would serve as a federal minister and as a state Attorney-General. He was regarded as a humble and decent individual who demonstrated courtesy and tolerance, and he was a dedicated servant of the Commonwealth, of his state and of his community. Kim Christian Beazley, now Governor of Western Australia—but, obviously, previously our federal leader—summed him up in this way:

Courageous and determined … that is how Joe came across, whether discussing our party's aims with trade unionists or with journalists and the ALP State executive. … Away from politics he was rightly admired as the most devoted family man.

A lifelong Western Australian, Joe Berinson was born in Perth in 1932 to parents who had emigrated from the Middle East on either side of World War I. After completing primary and secondary education with high levels of attainment, he then completed a four-year apprenticeship at Perth Technical College in pharmacy and finished each year as the best student in his cohort. He had a dual education in politics through exposure to political leaders, including Ben Chifley and Robert Menzies, at Forrest Place near the site of his on-the-job training, and also as a young leader in the Jewish community. He was a key proponent of the development of education facilities for Perth's Jewish community and also co-editor of The Maccabean newspaper.

Elected the member for Perth in 1969, after having previously and unsuccessfully contested the division of Swan in 1963, Joe Berinson was part of the growth in the Western Australian representation in Canberra that was critical to Labor's later success. In 1958 only Kim Edward Beazley was returned as a federal Labor member from Western Australia. Just over 10 years later, he had five colleagues. In his first speech, Mr Berinson identified the malaise that had developed as a result of two decades of conservative rule. He saw economic prosperity in Western Australia had come about in spite of government policies, not because of them, and he struck a chord with many of his constituents by identifying that many of them had failed to benefit from an otherwise buoyant economy. Ordinary people were not benefitting from a higher standard of living and were faced with rising costs at the same time as grappling with inequitable social payment and taxation scales. The lack of interest in considering an orderly transfer from the states to the Commonwealth of responsibilities in areas such as transport, education, health and housing resulted in a shunting process between different levels of government, with the ordinary person most definitely not a beneficiary.

In 1972, Labor came to power for the first time in a generation. Mr Berinson admired Gough Whitlam, for Gough's commitment and attention to civil rights and social welfare, and he would have an opportunity to participate in the advancement of the government's program, not only as a backbencher but in the ministry. He served briefly as Deputy Speaker and was appointed Minister for the Environment on 14 July 1975. Like many others, obviously his service was severely curtailed by the dismissal of the Whitlam government on Remembrance Day later that year.

Labor has a proud history of protecting the environment, and it was the Whitlam government that provided the foundation for this. Mr Berinson took on a portfolio in which there had been great policy advances in a short time. The Whitlam government appointed Australia's first minister for the environment, passed Australia's first environmental legislation, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, and put in place the inquiry into the environmental impacts of the Ranger Uranium Mine. Joe Berinson approached his ministerial role with the diligence that was typical across his career. He was a voracious reader and he quickly gained a reputation for being across his brief and for his well-informed questioning of his colleagues' cabinet submissions. But, of course, as I alluded to, the regrettable events of 11 November 1975 curtailed his ability to make his own impact in the environment portfolio. With his passing, there remain just four surviving members of those who served in the Whitlam ministry: Doug McClelland, Moss Cass, Bill Hayden and Paul Keating.

At the election immediately following the dismissal, Joe Berinson lost his seat in the parliament. A decade earlier, he had taken the view that it would be law rather than pharmacy that would best equip him with the skills required to affect the change that he saw was necessary. He completed his studies at the University of Western Australia by making use of the long flights to and from Canberra to work on his assignments. After an intervening period in which he put these legal qualifications to use, he entered the Western Australian Legislative Council in 1980.

On the election of Labor to government in Western Australia in 1983, he became Attorney-General. Courtesy of his service in the Whitlam government, he was the only member of the new state cabinet with any ministerial experience—obviously an asset, as he cast a critical and pedantic eye over the workings of the new government. He went on to serve in this role for a decade, surviving both the political winds and, of course, the WA Inc. royal commission. He took on other portfolios, including corrective services, prisons, budget management and resources, and, additionally, served from '87 to '93 as the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council.

One of the key political and policy issues he dealt with in his role was Aboriginal incarceration, which he described as a serious and frustrating problem. He recognised the need to address the causes through diversionary programs and alternative options to imprisonment. Regrettably, many years later, the incarceration rate of our First Nations peoples is still, as it was then, unacceptably high. Mr Berinson was justifiably proud of his efforts to place new emphasis on the rights of victims in criminal proceedings, and he oversaw the creation of a new parole system and introduced home detention. A new children's court with judicial oversight was established during his tenure. Of the Whitlam government ministers, only Paul Keating was to continue serving in an Australian parliament longer than Joe Berinson. Regarded as competent and well liked, he served with three premiers and could potentially have replaced one of them had he not turned down a suggestion that he assume the leadership. True to his humble demeanour, he decided he wasn't right for the job.

Joe Berinson did not contest the 1993 state election and he retired from politics at the end of April that year. Subsequently, he was appointed by the Commonwealth to serve on the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Mr Berinson was a dedicated servant of the Jewish community in his home state. This was something to which he was able to devote a greater amount of time in his retirement. He served as the president of the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia. At annual general meetings of Carmel School, he directed questions at the board with the same insistence as he had done to his colleagues around federal and state cabinet tables. Fifty years earlier, he had been the youngest contributor to the campaign to purchase the land on which the school would later be situated. He often spoke publically as a defender of the rights of Israel and in support of freedom of religious practice.

Joe Berinson was at the coalface of a generation-defining government. After being part of Labor's return to government in 1972, he had the opportunity to serve as a federal minister before Labor was swept from power just three years later. However, this proved to be the prelude to a much longer period of ministerial service at a state level, where he was fortunate to be a senior minister in a Labor government that lasted a decade. As I said, after politics he continued to serve his community.

Labor mourns the passing of our comrade. We again extend our sympathies to his family and friends at this time. As Senator Cormann has quoted, and as Mr Shorten has quoted, I end on the words that his family used to describe him: 'In life he did that which is asked of man: act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God'. May he rest in peace.

This afternoon I want to rise briefly, on behalf of all those in the West Australian Labor Party, to say our condolences to Joe Berinson's family and to pay respects for the enormous contribution that he's made to our nation and to the state of Western Australia. Thank you.

I ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion.

Honourable senators having stood in their places—

The motion is carried.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 893 standing in my name for today relating to euthanasia.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being no requests, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.

I move the motion standing in the name of Senator Pratt:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 December 2018:

The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the extent and nature of knowledge regarding cultural attitudes to, the practice of, and the prevalence of dowry in Australia, both before and after marriage;

(b) the appropriateness and impacts of dowry as a cultural practice in modern Australia, taking account of our national commitment to gender equality and human rights, and approach to multiculturalism;

(c) reports of dowry abuse, including potential links to family violence, pretext for arranged marriage, forced marriage, modern day slavery, financial abuse, domestic servitude, murder, and other crimes, as well as any connections between dowry abuse and adverse mental health outcomes for affected women, including self-harm and suicide;

(d) the adequacy of the family law system, including how divorce and property settlement proceedings deal with dowry and dowry abuse, and the operation of and need for extra-jurisdictional (including international) enforcement mechanisms;

(e) confirmed and potential links between dowry, dowry abuse and forced and/or arranged marriages, both in Australia and in connection with Australia's migration program;

(f) the adequacy of Australia's migration law system in terms of addressing dowry and dowry abuse, including:

  (i) the extent to which the requirements for spouse and family visas may enable or prevent dowry abuse,

  (ii) vulnerabilities experienced by women suffering dowry abuse as a result of temporary migration status, including disincentives to report dowry abuse and the ability of victims to access the family violence protections afforded by the Migration Act 1958 and associated regulations, and

  (iii) recommendations for change if necessary;

(g) training and reporting regimes that apply to Commonwealth, and State and Territory police forces and family violence services in relation to dowry and dowry abuse;

(h) investigation of laws and practices in international jurisdictions, in relation to defining dowry and combating dowry abuse, with particular regard to how these approaches could be applied the Australian context;

(i) the adequacy of current Commonwealth and State and Territory laws in establishing broadly accepted community norms and in preventing dowry abuse, and specific recommendations for change if laws need to be strengthened; and

(j) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Singh, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) remains deeply concerned by the continued crisis facing Rohingyan refugees, especially the 500,000 children currently living in refugee camps in Bangladesh;

(b) notes:

  (i) the particular vulnerability of women and children,

  (ii) that many of Rakhine State's 1 million Rohingya and other minorities live in insubstantial tented camps and rely on United Nations and Non-Government Organisation (NGO) aid for survival,

  (iii) that wild weather including monsoonal rains is wreaking havoc—flooding low-lying areas of the camps and washing raw sewage into family homes and water supplies,

  (iv) that if necessary, refugee camps need to be located on appropriate land which can provide safety from the monsoon season, floods and disease and have adequate space for the provision of services,

  (v) that the proposed camp on the Bay of Bengal silt island Bhasan Char has been criticised by humanitarian agencies concerned that the silt island is vulnerable to frequent cyclones and cannot sustain livelihoods for thousands of people; and

(c) urges the Turnbull Government to:

  (i) do everything in its power to help Rohingya refugee children and their families living in camps by working with the Bangladesh Government to ensure their survival, health and safety, and

  (ii) assist the Government of Bangladesh to make the necessary transition from emergency response to meeting the longer-term development needs of Rohingya refugee children and their families as well as the host community.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government has responded rapidly and generously to the urgent humanitarian needs of refugees in Bangladesh and Myanmar, including by providing $70 million in humanitarian assistance since September 2017 for emergency supplies in Rakhine State, and food, shelter, clean water and essential health services in Cox's Bazar. This includes an additional $18.4 million, announced on 20 June 2018, to support those in Bangladesh.

Managing the humanitarian response during the cyclone and monsoon season is a priority, including to address flooding and landslides and the increased risk of disease outbreak. Australian funding is helping to reinforce shelters, relocating people from at risk locations, positioning food supplies and delivering diphtheria vaccinations.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) Western Australia receives a much lower proportion of goods and services tax (GST) revenue per capita than any other state – in 2017-18, the GST share per dollar for Western Australia was just 34 cents; no other state or territory received less than 87 cents,

  (ii) on a per capita basis this equates to just $882 for every person in Western Australia compared to:

(A) $11,941 for every person in the Northern Territory,

(B) $4,624 for every Tasmanian, $3,690 for every South Australian and $2,389 for every Victorian with each of these states receiving more than three times the GST distribution per person when compared with Western Australia,

  (iii) in 2016-17, Western Australia contributed 35 per cent of the nation's exports – by far the country's leading state on a balance of payments basis,

  (iv) Western Australia subsidises all other states and territories, and, according to analysis by the Productivity Commission, over $3 billion dollars a year is being drained from Western Australia,

  (v) international economic studies have shown that revenue transfers between states discourages economic development in recipient states and makes them dependent on subsidies from more economically progressive states, and

  (vi) the Productivity Commission has prepared a report at the request of the government into the current GST distribution system, presented to the government on 15 May 2018 but not yet released;

(b) recognises that it is in the interests of the nation that tax revenue be fairly distributed; and

(c) calls on the government to immediately table the Productivity Commission report into the GST distribution system.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This is the most important issue in my home state of Western Australia. It is discussed every day by members of the WA community, including the media. West Australians are sick and tired of getting a raw deal with the GST. We have been propping up the eastern states when we simply cannot afford to do so. We in Western Australia are getting just 34c for every dollar. Meanwhile, our neighbours in the Northern Territory get $4.60 for every dollar and our neighbours in South Australia get $1.43 for every dollar. The situation is so ridiculous that the Productivity Commission was called in to review the system. Now we have the report, but the government is not releasing it. I urge all senators, especially those supposedly representing the Western Australian people, to vote in favour of this motion. Show all Western Australians where they really stand on the issue of a fair GST for WA.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government is committed to the fair-go principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation and to put in place a real solution that does the right thing by our national economy. Our goal is straightforward: to deliver a fairer, more durable and more efficient system for implementing horizontal fiscal equalisation into the future in the national interest. The government intends to table the Productivity Committee report shortly.

I seek leave to speak on the motion.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Greens don't support this motion. And, as a senator for South Australia, I just want to make it very clear that we're not interested in seeing this change, which would result in less money going to smaller states, such as Tasmania and South Australia. And I might just point out, while I've still got 44 seconds on the clock, that it is appalling that the Liberal candidate for Mayo, Georgina Downer, has gone to this by-election with a background of saying that South Australia doesn't deserve the share of GST that we get. Why on earth we would want this person, with these views, representing the people of Mayo and being a representative from South Australia is beyond me. She shouldn't be there, she would never represent our state properly and she shouldn't be elected.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

At the risk of conflating the facts before us with the emotional political rhetoric that Senator Hanson-Young has just determined, I want to point out that this motion only describes the facts as they apply to Western Australia. It is understandably calling for a fairer distribution in favour of Western Australia and seeks the tabling of the Productivity Commission report on GST redistribution. I support it on that basis. There's nothing wrong with the government tabling the report so we can ponder the solution that is being put forward, and that's the motion that I'll be supporting today.

The question is that motion No. 886 be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Williams, O'Sullivan, Abetz, Bushby, Colbeck, Duniam, McKim, Whish-Wilson, Polley, Singh, Urquhart, Bilyk and Brown, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) 28 years after the creation of the Australian Football League's (AFL) national competition, Tasmania remains without a team in either the men's or women's competitions,

  (ii) along with Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, Tasmania is an original foundational state for Australian Rules football,

  (iii) Australian Rules football remains one of the biggest social institutions in Tasmania, and plays an important role in the health and well-being of Tasmanians, as well as supporting the strength and cohesion of communities throughout the state,

  (iv) Tasmania has been a regular and proud source of talent for the AFL and AFLW since their inception,

  (v) despite three decades of support by the community and many politicians, including the bipartisan recommendations of a Senate committee, the AFL has not committed to a Tasmanian AFL team, and

  (vi) Tasmanian football is at the crossroads and with limited talent pathways there is significant risk to community interest and enthusiasm which is compounded with increasing competition from other sports;

(b) expresses its support for the establishment and inclusion of a Tasmanian team in the AFL and AFLW at the soonest feasible opportunity; and

(c) calls on the AFL to commission new independent business plans for the inclusion of a Tasmanian team in the men's and women's national leagues by 2023.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor recognises Tasmania's proud football history and the important role football plays in Tasmanian communities today. Tasmania has provided some of the game's greats, and talented young Tasmanians continue to be drafted to the AFL and AFLW. Despite being a traditional Aussie Rules state, Tasmania has suffered as the AFL has prioritised expansion into non-traditional markets. It is for the AFL to make decisions about when a new AFL or AFLW club might be introduced or where it will be based. It is important that, across this parliament, we unite and send a strong message that the AFL should properly consider the case for both Tasmanian AFL and AFLW teams at the next opportunity.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Tasmania is a traditional and proud AFL footy state that has been repeatedly shafted by the powers in the AFL. We deserve our own men's and women's teams, and it is simply not good enough for the AFL to keep referring this off into the never-never. We need a clear statement from the AFL that lays out a pathway for Tasmania to have both men's and women's AFL teams based in Tasmania with 'Tasmania' in their names so that the Tasmanian football community, which is a massive, proud and motivated community, can get behind men's and women's Tasmanian teams in the AFL. Fold the failing Gold Coast Suns and give the licence to Tasmania!

Question agreed to.

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

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that today, the 26th of June, marks the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture;

(b) recognises that:

  (i) a large number of refugees coming to Australia have been exposed to traumatic events, and most will have experienced multiple traumas, including war and violence, deprivation, and the death and disappearance of loved ones, and

  (ii) many will also have been subjected to torture or severe human rights violations;

(c) acknowledges the important work that the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (FASSTT) performs, including the work performed by Australia's eight specialist rehabilitation agencies in advancing the health, well-being and human rights of people from refugee backgrounds who have experienced torture and trauma.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump, has expressed interest in visiting Australia in November; and

(b) calls upon the government and presiding officers to extend an invitation to the President to address a joint meeting of the Australian Parliament.

Question agreed to.

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

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Export Control Act 1982 to prohibit the export of live equines for slaughter, and for related purposes.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Australian government has no agreements in place for the export of live equines for slaughter to any country. Each year a large number of equines are transported both to and from Australia for breeding, racing and equestrian purposes. Since 2010, there have been an average of 2,377 equines in 396 consignments per year. Donkeys are occasionally exported for breeding purposes or as companion and zoo animals. During 2017, a total of 14 donkeys were exported for these purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I present the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

EXPORT CONTROL AMENDMENT (EQUINE LIVE EXPORT FOR SLAUGHTER PROHIBITION) BILL 2018

SECOND READING SPEECH

On behalf of the Australian Greens and Senator Derryn Hinch I introduce the Export Control Amendment (Equine Live Export for Slaughter Prohibition) Bill 2018.

In doing so, I acknowledge the work of former Senator Kakoschke-Moore and her staff on this bill and their contribution to this second reading speech.

The Export Control Amendment (Equine Live Export for Slaughter Prohibition) Bill amends the Export Control Act 1982 to expressly prohibit the live export of horses, donkeys, mules and hinnies for the purpose of slaughtering those animals overseas.

The recent footage of 2,400 sheep slowly dying on board a live export ship is a reminder of why the intense suffering inflicted by the existing live export trade should not be allowed to extend to even more species.

This bill if passed would ensure that equines would not also be subject to the horrors of the existing live export trade.

The live shipment of these sensitive animals for slaughter does not currently exist in Australia. However, in 2017 it was revealed that the Turnbull government had prepared an exposure draft of the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Equine Animals) Order 2017 (the Equine Amendment Order). If this order had been enacted it would have opened the door for Australia's horses and donkeys to be exported. This would have resulted in an expansion of the cruel live export system that has been responsible for the horrific death of thousands of cows and sheep at sea and brutal deaths at their destination.

In this instance, the target destination was to China—a country not known for animal welfare protections.

There is an emerging global trade for donkey skins that has resulted in global donkey populations plummeting, and working donkeys from villages around the world being sold or stolen and killed often brutally for their skins. There are reports of donkeys and related animals being skinned alive. Some are killed by being pounded with a hammer.

The trade is being driven by a marketed demand for the animals' skins which are boiled into a glutinous glue called Ejiao and marketed in pills, bars or tonics as a so-called luxury "vitality tonic". Around the world, this is causing mass-scale suffering to donkeys and devastation to the communities that depend on these animals for transport.

In 2017, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce was eyeing this cruel live export trade of all equines for slaughter as a business opportunity. In March 2017, responding to the interest of Chinese businesses he stated that "We're going to make sure if you want to eat donkey skins, you're going to eat our [Australian] edible donkey skins".

Questions in Senate Estimates to the Department of Agriculture asked by myself and Senator Hinch confirmed that secret discussions had been had with visiting businesses looking to Australian horses and donkeys to boil up into potions for a hungry market.

The public response was swift and outraged. Australia's peak body for the live export trade, the Australian Live Export Council (ALEC), immediately issued a statement that "A live export trade in Australian horses and donkeys does not currently exist, and ALEC members are neither seeking nor supportive of any such trade commencing."

The Senate supported Senator Hinch's and my motion condemning any such trade. The motion called on the government to heed community expectations and definitively ban the export of live horses, ponies and donkeys for slaughter.

That is what this bill would achieve.

The annual global demand for donkey skins has been estimated by The Donkey Sanctuary to be between four and ten million.

As the lucrative fad for donkey hide glue has soared in China, Chinese agricultural authorities have reported that their own donkey populations have plummeted from 11 million in 1990 to five million in 2015.

Supply businesses have had to look elsewhere and have been thus decimating donkey populations across the world as they feed the animals into the supply chain and into the stinking holds of the ships carrying their suffering live animal cargos across the planet's oceans to be killed.

The growth of the market for donkey skins has seen poor communities priced out of ownership or replacement of old animals, or have their animals stolen and killed. Many of these communities rely on donkeys as their transport for water and goods, and as agricultural beasts of burden, and this has seriously affected agricultural production and the livelihoods of whole impoverished communities.

The growth of this market has also seen the starvation of animals by dealers, given the profit lies in the skins' gelatine and not their flesh.

So serious has this become, that countries are now banning the international trade, with Pakistan the first country to ban the export of donkey hides in 2015. Nine African governments have followed suit by banning donkey skin exports, and in Brazil concerns about the trade are growing.

The booming Ejiao profiteering grinds on, producing more than 5,000 tonnes of gelatine per year. The scarcity of skins has led to rising product fraud, with manufacturers substituting horses as raw material.

An industry based on the long-distance transportation and slaughter of equines raises serious and unavoidable risks to the welfare of the animals. As is already tragically well known, the live export trade is a serious welfare crisis, with stress, disease, injury and death during the transport alone being compounded by the lack of control over what happens to the animals in importing countries.

These risks are especially high for horses and donkeys who must also pass through the same many stressful stages of transportation prior to even leaving Australia. Mustering, then yarding, loading, trucking, unloading, holding in an assembly area and then trucking and final loading for export subjects the animals to terrible stresses before the horrors of the live export journey itself begins.

As all horse and donkey lovers know, equines are highly sensitive animals and are particularly susceptible to the many collective stressors inherent with live export.

Studies, including a 2013 study published in the Animal Science Journal, have shown that trucking even previously handled horses or donkeys for as little as four hours results in both species showing a stress response, with donkeys showing higher levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, than horses.

A 2015 Australian study titled 'Health problems and risk factors associated with long haul transport of horses in Australia' researched records from 180 consignments of horses transported over 4,000 km (from Perth to Sydney) and concluded that long-haul transport is a risk for horse health and welfare.

Researchers have also noted that domesticated donkeys are very difficult to load and that it is essential that the animals must be handled with great care and patience by competent people. Similarly, even well-trained horses can develop an aversion to transport and pose a danger to themselves and the handler if transported.

In addition to a stress response, other outcomes associated with transporting live animals, including horses and donkeys, include physical injuries such as broken limbs, damaged hooves, and eye and head injuries; psychological trauma; elevated heart and respiration rates and decreased electrolyte levels.

Where wild horses or donkeys are sourced for live export, these welfare risks are compounded by their lack of any prior contact with humans or experience of yarding, loading or transport. While the risks of loading domesticated horses and donkeys can be high, these animal welfare risks are magnified for wild animals as are the impacts of the stressors associated with transport. Where these animals are dealt with en masse as part of a supply chain dependent on time and quantity efficiencies as its model, the cruelty and suffering of equines entering this trade is guaranteed.

Let's not forget the tragic death of last year's 16 prized polo ponies on the relatively short ferry trip from Tasmania to Victoria, to the shock of careful and loving owners. If this is the level of risk, how could we then expect horses and donkeys to survive the long trip overseas, in conditions already proved to cause such terrible suffering?

The recognised fact is that the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) and Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) conditions on the live export chain do not work. The live export industry is a business model unavoidably built on the suffering of animals that continues under the Australian government's purview. Additionally, evidence of brutal and abhorrent suffering once the animals are unloaded continues to be exposed by courageous whistleblowers and animal welfare organisations who are committed to Australians' demand for better treatment of the animals unfortunate enough to be used by humans.

We have been giving a rare opportunity here. Australians do not want to see the start of a live export trade in horses and donkeys for slaughter overseas. The live export industry itself does not want to see such a trade. There is little doubt that horse racing and horse breeding industries would not want to be associated with such a trade, nor risk the added cruelty of their old or injured animals entering into the supply chain where so much suffering is known.

Supporting this bill does not require the shutting down of an industry. There are no jobs reliant on the live export of equines for slaughter.

Non-government organisations led by Humane Society International and The Donkey Sanctuary have been tirelessly educating the public and decision-makers about the realities of the terrible demand for the skins of these sensitive and charismatic animals. The Greens stand with them, and with most Australians, to support a pre-emptive ban to ensure that Australia plays no part in growing this terrible trade.

The thought that there is a legislative gap that could allow the live export trade to extend to more animals is very worrying. The Greens are firmly opposed to this trade that is already seeing millions of equines suffering for a substance that is nothing more than boiled donkey or horse skin, marketed and packaged up to unsuspecting consumers as a luxury good. Australians want no part in supplying or facilitating growth in this profiteering.

Animals suffer so much in the name of human profit, entertainment or beauty. The Greens are deeply committed to removing that suffering of animals where it is possible, from ending cosmetic testing on animals to ending live exports.

This bill confirms the status quo and ensures that export of live equines, including horses, ponies and donkeys for killing in overseas slaughterhouses will never begin.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) on 4 June 2018, Mr Bill Morrow told the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network (NBN) that NBN Co was considering instituting a fair use policy to curb the usage of some customers on fixed wireless who were using terabytes of data and characterised these customers as being 'predominantly gamers',

  (ii) Mr Morrow also stated that 'when people are gaming it is a high bandwidth requirement that's a steady stream',

  (iii) Mr Morrow also stated that, as a layer 2 company, NBN Co does not have the data to know how users are consuming data,

  (iv) online video games require a very minimal amount of bandwidth at approximately 10MB per hour versus streaming a 720p video at approximately 500MB per hour, and

  (v) according to NBN Co's own webpage entitled 'How much data does gaming use? A handful of popular examples' published on 29 December 2016, 'some of the biggest online games use very little data while you're playing compared to streaming HD video or even high-fidelity audio';

(b) acknowledges that online video game players are not to blame for the poor performance of the NBN, during peak or other times, over any NBN technology; and

(c) calls on the government to deliver a fit-for-purpose national broadband network that meets the needs of all Australians, including those in rural, regional and remote areas.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Ensuring affordable broadband is available to all Australian homes and businesses, including those in regional areas, is a priority for the coalition government. That's why the Australian government is committing close to $5 billion to regional and rural broadband in the form of fixed wireless and satellite technologies. This is arguably the biggest investment in rural and regional broadband anywhere in the world, and includes cross-subsidies from NBN users in our cities. As with any satellite and fixed wireless broadband technology, capacity is finite and needs to be carefully monitored and managed in order to deliver a network that can provide the best customer experience. Neither the government nor NBN determine or develop policy by way of a Senate motion.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) on 18 January 2018, Senator Steele-John wrote to the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to clarify the NBN Co's policy on providing internet access to people living in outbuildings and granny flats,

  (ii) on 22 May 2018, the Minister confirmed via return letter that 'granny flats that share the same address as the primary residence cannot apply for a network service as it is NBN's policy that each network service must be linked to a unique address',

  (iii) NBN Co's policy on providing internet access to people living in outbuildings and granny flats is very inflexible to a variety of living configurations and that it is not reasonable to expect that someone who is renting a granny flat, or even extended family living at one address, should be required to share the same NBN service,

  (iv) this service limitation has not been an issue with previous technologies and this limitation is not acceptable as Australia transitions to the NBN,

  (v) Australians should not suffer loss of quality, flexibility, stability, or cost-effectiveness when transitioning to the NBN, particularly when this transition is ultimately not optional; and

(b) calls on the government to deliver a fit-for-purpose national broadband network that meets the needs of all Australians, including those living in outbuildings and granny flats.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition government is ensuring every Australian home and business has access to fast broadband as soon as possible at affordable price and at the least cost to taxpayers. The NBN rollout will be completed in 2020, by which time more than 11 million homes and businesses will be able to participate fully in the digital economy. To connect to residential service, NBN requires a unique address or location identifier for each premises. Where pre-NBN services are already connected, they can be typically switched to the NBN. Residents have the option to connect their secondary properties and outbuildings to the NBN with extended cabling, wirelessly or under new NBN's new-developments arrangements.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Australian Financial Review published on 25 June 2018 an opinion piece by the Hon Alexander Downer entitled "An undemocratic motley crew with too much power",

  (ii) in the opinion piece, Mr Downer referred to the Senate as not having "the same democratic legitimacy as the lower house",

  (iii) Mr Downer took issue with the presumption from some current and former senators that "they think they have the same rights as lower house members", and

  (iv) Mr Downer endorsed the Constitutional Review Committee's recommendation to provide the Parliament with the power to reduce the number of senators by as much as half;

(b) further notes that:

  (i) 40 per cent of voters from Mr Downer's home state—South Australia—voted in the Senate for a party other than Labor or the Liberal Party at the 2016 election, and

  (ii) Mr Downer crudely slanders this clear expression of the will of the South Australian public by arguing the crossbench is nothing more than "a motley group of populists who convince voters to vote for them by promising the world", and

(c) rejects this interjection as the latest example of the Downer dynasty talking down the ability of the South Australian public to make an informed and considered voting decision.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government acknowledges that senators are elected through a legitimate democratic voting method and recognises and respects the role of the Senate as a house of review and the states' house in the Australian parliamentary system. The government will continue to engage respectfully with all senators to secure the passage of its legislative agenda.

Question agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 891 standing in my name for today relating to Ms Khalida Jarrar be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection?

Yes.

There is an objection to formality being granted.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Khalida Jarrar is an elected Palestinian parliamentarian who has been imprisoned by the Israeli government. She has been in jail for a year. The intelligence under which Ms Jarrar is being held has not been disclosed by the Australian military. After her arrest in 2017, she said the occupying state does not respect the rights of Palestinian parliamentarians, their immunity, their right to be politically active and their right to freedom of expression. The Israeli government practice of arbitrary detention is a violation of international laws, particularly articles 78 and 72 of the 4th Geneva convention. These articles state that an accused individual has the right to defend themselves. In Ms Jarrar's case, there have been no charges. She is a political prisoner of Israel. Ms Jarrar could spend the rest of her life in jail and she is not the only Palestinian MP in jail. A country is not a democracy if it has political prisoners.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

In line with the longstanding view of successive governments, given that formal motions cannot be debated or amended, they should not deal with complex or contested foreign policy matters. The Senate should not consider and vote on foreign policy motions of this kind without the ability to have a full debate given they involve serious and substantial issues.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I just wish to point out that all members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are now into their 11th year of a four-year term. Democracy is a remote concept in Palestine.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

  (i) the recent suspension of Emanuel Exports export licence by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, which is an appropriate response to the company's alleged breach of its animal welfare obligations, and

  (ii) that, while it is the responsibility of each exporter to ensure it meets these obligations, remedial action should not unnecessarily punish producers; and

(b) calls on the government to:

  (i) ensure that the West Australian farmers contracted to Emanuel Exports are compensated during the investigation process,

  (ii) in the event Emanuel Exports is found to have breached its animal welfare obligations, urge the company to compensate farmers for their economic loss,

  (iii) support the development of abattoirs throughout Australia, and

  (iv) provide certainty for the future of Australian sheep producers by legislating for an orderly phase-out of the sheep live export trade.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

It is inappropriate for the Senate to express a view on an ongoing investigation by an independent regulator. Exporters are responsible for ensuring they meet the animal welfare requirements under Commonwealth and state law. Options and next steps for the sheep and the farmers contracted to the company are a matter for the company concerned. The Australian government provides a range of assistant measures to Western Australian farmers and farm businesses experiencing hardship, including farm household allowance to eligible farmers, access to rural financial counselling, and social and community support. The coalition government supports a sustainable live sheep trade which has regard to animal welfare outcomes and recognises the positive economic contribution that it and the red meat industry deliver to the nation, to local communities and to rural families at the farm gate. The export of livestock overseas increases livestock prices across the entire Australian red meat industry and increases returns to livestock producers and their communities.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I'm glad that Senator Hinch is following my lead to support farmers because their voice in this whole live export issue has been ignored. Farmers in my home state of Western Australia supply the vast majority of this country's live export market. The issue is more important for Western Australia than any other state. Yes, we all agree the treatment of Australian animals on the Awassi Express was disgraceful and that changes need to be made. However, we cannot hang our farmers out to dry with knee-jerk reactions and rushing through policies based on a motion. No-one has convinced me yet we have a viable plan for our farmers once a ban is introduced. Pauline Hanson's One Nation will not support any legislation to phase out live export trade until we are convinced it is in the best interests of our farmers.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The live sheep export trade is in crisis. Of two export companies, one has been suspended, one has suspended itself. It's estimated two-thirds of the sheep usually exported in this year will not now be exported.

The government needs to step in. Transition packages are needed. About six per cent of the sheep in this country usually are exported. Something needs to happen. Transition packages are needed for farmers to provide assistance, but they're also needed to ensure that workers are trained adequately and that the infrastructure is in place. We urge the government to work with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which has been giving attention to this issue for a long time, and ensure that local TAFEs are well equipped to provide the training so that the workforce is there and so that it can bring a jobs boost, an economic boost, to regional areas. It's time we ended the mass cruelty, expanded local jobs and assisted our economy by transitioning away from the live export trade. (Time expired)

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

On live exports, no-one wants to see the animals suffering as they do, but the facts are that 14½ million sheep have been transported by that company, of which 0.67 per cent died on the journey. That means that 99.3 per cent survived. I'd just suggest that that's about what you'd expect to lose in the paddock; it's no greater than you'd normally lose. And, with respect, there are cruise companies going around the world that might have a higher mortality rate.

The question is that motion No. 887 be agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

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

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

Putting health and education ahead of a $7,000 a year tax cut for investment bankers and a $17 billion tax cut for the banks they work for.

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

This debate is about something that we've been talking about very often over the course of this sitting week and last sitting week, and that is the government's outrageous proposals to give further tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our community and to big banks and big business in general. I think it's well known by now the kinds of figures we've been talking about, because we have talked about them quite a lot over the last week or two.

Let's just revisit what occurred in this chamber last week, where we had a gaggle of coalition senators, supported by One Nation and Centre Alliance senators and a few other Independents, who ganged up to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut while they were willing to give only a measly few hundred dollars to low- and middle-income earners. There's the hypocrisy of government and One Nation senators in doing that. I particularly want to single out the National Party senators and One Nation senators, who do come down here to Canberra and claim that they represent some of the poorest people in our community, particularly in rural and regional areas. Yet what they did last week was take instructions yet again from Liberal Party representatives, who represent some of the wealthiest parts of the country, and effectively handed over their votes and their own constituents' taxes and services to fund a massive tax cut for themselves, among other wealthy business owners.

As this motion states, the other effect of that debate last week and the legislation put through last week was that government senators, with One Nation senators and others, also provided a $7,000-a-year tax cut not only for themselves but for merchant bankers and investment bankers—the kinds of people who don't need that sort of assistance from this government. We all know that the way that's being funded is by continuing to cut funding to regional and rural services: hospitals, schools, TAFEs, apprenticeships, roads and transport. They're the kinds of things that this government is cutting, all to pay for $7,000-a-year tax cuts for investment bankers and the members of parliament who voted for these tax cuts.

We have another opportunity this week for National Party senators and One Nation party senators to demonstrate who they really stand for. Are they really on the side of battlers, as they claim when they're back in their electorates, or are they actually on the side of the billionaires who will benefit from these tax cuts? We know that, at some point in this week, a debate is going to come on, finally, for whether we should be providing another massive tax cut for the biggest businesses in Australia, including $17 billion for the banks.

We've seen from Senator Hanson flip-flopping around for months now on whether she will support these company tax cuts. I've lost count of the number of times that Senator Hanson has changed her position. She was originally going to vote against these tax cuts for big business, then she was voting for them. Then she was back to voting against them, then she was voting for them. She had another chat with Twiggy Forrest and she was voting for them, and then she went back to Queensland and told people that she was voting against them.

It's 4.37 pm on Tuesday, 26 June, and the current One Nation position is to vote against these company tax cuts. But you have to wonder why it is that yesterday, when Senator Hanson and Senator Georgiou were presented with an opportunity to bring on the debate to stop these company tax cuts from going ahead, they dogged it. Yet again, they voted with the government senators because that's just what they do. They don't use their own minds. They don't think about what people in Queensland or people in Western Australia think about company tax cuts. All they do is run up to Senator Cormann and his colleagues and say, 'Where do I put up my hand? Tell me what to do and I'll do it for you,' and, yet again, they sell out the battlers they say they represent.

At some point this week, they are going to be tested. At some point this week, the colour of their money is going to be tested and we will see, once and for all, whether they are for the big banks and big business or whether they actually do want to get behind better services for regional and rural Australians, not to mention people in electorates like Longman. We all know there's going to be a by-election in Longman in the coming weeks, as there will be in Braddon and other seats around Australia. As I've said to this chamber before, with the doorknocking I've been doing in Longman—I don't know whether Senator Hanson has had an opportunity to get out and doorknock in Longman; I know she's been in the electorate, but whether she's actually spoken to any voters on their doorsteps is another matter—there are not many people out there crying for big tax cuts for the big banks. Instead, they want to see this money put into their local hospitals and their local schools, and into giving pensioners and other working people a fair go. Let's hope they come through when the vote's on.

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance introduced to this place by our colleague from Victoria, Senator Collins. She wishes us to discuss 'putting health and education ahead of a $7,000 a year tax cut for investment bankers and a $17 billion tax cut for the banks they work for'. What a pleasure it is to receive the opportunity to stand in this chamber and speak of the government's record and priorities. The Turnbull government is, in fact, the only side of politics that will fully fund the essential services that all Australians rely on. Only a growing economy that fuels growth and job creation, combined with prudent fiscal management, reining in the profligacy of Labor governments past, will ensure that essential services like education, Medicare, hospitals and the NDIS can be guaranteed.

The education reforms introduced by the coalition to this place—reforms that deliver record funding to schools year on year and that the Labor Party voted against—are in fact game changing. The coalition's Quality Schools reform delivers an additional $23.5 billion on top of the 2016 budget for Australian schools over the next decade. We'll ensure that the investment is distributed according to need, as originally envisaged by David Gonski's review of school funding in 2011. The coalition reforms ensure that students with the same need and within the same sector attract the same support from the Commonwealth government, regardless of where they live. These are real, committed dollars, needs based and fully funded.

The coalition has guaranteed Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with legislation. They are guaranteed in legislation. It has established the Medicare Guarantee Fund to ensure the ongoing funding of these essential activities. Over 86 per cent of GP visits were bulk-billed last year—21 million more than in Labor's last year. Hospital funding is now at record levels, increasing from $13.3 billion in 2013-14 to a record $22.7 billion in 2020-21—that's a 70 per cent increase. After this date, with the coalition's new national hospitals agreement, the government has committed to an additional $30.2 billion in public hospital funding for 2020-21 to 2024-25, taking the overall investment during this period to $130.2 billion. This means more hospital services, more doctors and more nurses, with increased funding year on year for every state and territory.

For the 13 million Australians who rely on private health insurance, the coalition has taken steps to lower premium rises and to make private health insurance more affordable and easier to understand. Our No Jab, No Pay policy resulted in 210 extra children immunised in its first year, and 12 to 13-year-olds will now be immunised for HPV. To help the one-in-five Australians who have mental health problems, the coalition government has increased mental health funding to around $4.3 billion this year. The 2018 budget also includes $1.4 billion for new and amended listings to the PBS, including medicines to treat spinal muscular atrophy, breast cancer and relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. That is guaranteed. That is where the coalition's priorities lie. Of course, the coalition government is the only side of politics that can guarantee a fully-funded NDIS without more or punitive taxes.

That's what economic management and fiscal responsibility can do: more and better guaranteed essential services for all Australians without the burden of higher taxes. The electorates know it. They can feel it in their hip pockets. They can see it in the numbers of job ads. They can hear it when they talk to their friends, their neighbours and their workmates.

It's only Labor who have not so much a tin ear but have turned a blind eye to these facts. They are in denial. They are doing this because they're starting to doubt themselves. They're starting to doubt their own policies. Why aren't they resonating with Australian workers anymore? How could Labor be, potentially, the first party ever to lose a by-election to a government? What an awful, sick feeling that must be. Labor are starting to doubt their own rhetoric. Why do they sound so bitter? 'Why do we sound so bitter and envious of anybody that's had a go and done well? What base element of our nature is it that makes us want to slash the sickle of socialism through every tall poppy in the country?'

Most of all, Deputy President, you're starting to doubt your leader. We can see why you would do that. It's so easy to do. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that Mr Shorten himself believed in company taxes. We've heard the quotes over and over again in this chamber, from Mr Shorten himself, from Mr Bowen, from Mr Leigh, from Mr Hawke and from Mr Keating. There are a number of Labor ministers, past and present, who believe in the power of company tax cuts to reinvigorate an economy and help businesses grow, invest and employ.

Indeed, the seeds of doubt in Labor's political strategy have been sown for some time. And now they have moved inexorably beyond green shoots, well into discontent and the triffids of dissent and disloyalty. While Mr Shorten spent the weekend spewing forth invective at the members of the crossbench who supported leaving more money in Australians' hip pockets, the member for Grayndler was extolling the virtues of cooperation between companies, government and business. This is to his credit, that there is one respectable member of the Australian Labor Party who understands the business community's vital role in society.

Mr Albanese's Whitlam Oration implored his Labor colleagues:

… to engage constructively with business large and small.

He reminded his colleagues:

We respect and celebrate the importance of individual enterprise and the efforts and importance of the business community.

I'm not exactly sure who the member for Grayndler meant when he said 'we' in that sentence. Far from respecting the efforts and the enterprise of the business community, Mr Shorten continues to paint those hardworking business owners as pariahs. He has all but declared that should he become Prime Minister he will wage a war on business. Of course, we've seen that nowhere more effectively than today: the mistrust was amplified and justified today, topped off by the announcement that Mr Shorten will repeal the company tax cuts. He will roll back company tax cuts, and that decision did not go to caucus. It didn't go to shadow cabinet or to the Expenditure Review Committee. It was a captain's call. No wonder Labor are worried.

The opposition's hatred of banks is so convenient, yet so misguided. Of course, it is largely theatrical. Surely, Labor must know that the banks to which they refer are already Australia's four biggest payers of corporate tax—and this is well before the bank levy. Moreover, the banks employ more than 170,000 employees—170,000! The average bank teller earns $48,000, the average personal banker earns $55,000 and the average mortgage broker earns $59,000. This is not the top end of town and yet this is who Labor will punish. There are 170,000 of them, and Labor treats them like greedy crooks. Well, shame on them!

The opposition leader's wish is to have a class warfare election, where he pits one Australian against the other. Well, what disrespect and what disdain he must have for those he wishes to govern. But it applies equally to all of those opposite. Don't they feel grubby when they hear the lies they're told that they have to peddle? Don't they feel the shame when they're sent out time and time again, like some luckless boxer into the ring, with talking points which are fully loaded with personal insults—or worse, dripping with sneering derision towards hardworking Australians whose only crime is to have made good?

Labor may make hollow promises of more money for this and increased billions for that, but redistributing the wealth of others rather than growing the wealth for all is intellectually lazy and irresponsible in the extreme. It's no secret that Labor has no plan to grow the economy, no plan to increase wages and no plan to create jobs. Moreover, Labor has no shame. Where is the pride in the party it once was? Mr Shorten will lead this opposition from nowhere to obscurity because it has defenestrated its history, it has defenestrated its values and its credibility, and now it has thrown away its relevance to ordinary, aspirational Australians. It mystifies me!

It felt like the thesaurus got a bit of a workout when that speech was being drafted!

Having helped themselves to a massive personal tax cut last week, the Liberals are now trying to look after their big corporate mates and donors by giving them a whopping great tax cut this week. Let's be really clear about what's actually at stake here. Fundamentally, what are we discussing and debating when we talk about corporate tax cuts?

What is at stake here is the question of what kind of country we want to be and what kind of society we want in Australia. Do we want to be the kind of country where people look after each other? The Greens say, resoundingly, 'Yes, that is the kind of country we should be.' When we ask ourselves, 'Do we want quality public services, quality hospitals, quality schools, quality public transport and quality social security nets for those doing it tough?' the Australian Greens answer, resoundingly, 'Yes'.

When we ask ourselves, 'Do we want the big corporates, who donate so massively to both the Liberal and National parties in this place, to pay a reasonable return to our society on the huge profits they are making?' the Australian Greens resoundingly answer, 'Yes'. Or do we want what the Liberals are proposing—to cut these corporations free of the very basic obligations that many of them are actually failing to meet right now? Do we want to hand over more power to the corporate boardrooms, bought by the corporate donations that are corrupting our democracy? The Australian Greens answer, 'No'. Do we want to leave vulnerable people out in the cold, like the homeless people in my home city of Hobart, who are camping out at showgrounds now because they can't find a house—and many of these people are working full-time and they can't find a house because the Liberal government in Tasmania has not taken strong enough action and invested enough money into social and affordable housing? When we ask ourselves, 'Do we want to leave vulnerable people out in the cold?' the Australian Greens answer, 'No'. Those are the questions that are currently before this parliament.

The Liberal Party made their choice many years ago and their decisions are hurting us all and they are devastating the environment. The Liberal Party have been instrumental in taking power away from people and putting it into the hands of the corporate boardrooms and their corporate masters, who buy and sell the Liberal Party with their massive corporate donations. The big corporates buy the Liberal Party in donations and, in turn, the Liberal Party come in here and cut the taxes of the big corporations so that the top end of town can put more money into their own pockets. That's exactly what will happen if these corporate tax cuts are passed.

The people of Braddon, in my home state of Tasmania, know all about it—my word they do! There are corporations on the north-west coast that have cut jobs in Braddon and have cut the working conditions of thousands of people in the north-west of Tasmania—the very same big corporates that the Liberal Party wants to give a giant tax cut to. Meanwhile, if you're one of the people sacked by these corporations, you get nothing but disdain and contempt from the Liberal Party. Newstart hasn't been raised in more than 20 years—nearly a full generation—and the minimum wage in this country is far, far too low. Instead of acting on those things, the government tries to recover debts from people who either don't have enough money to pay them or who, in many cases, did nothing wrong and incurred no debt in the first place. It's enough to make you sick, and the people of Braddon have had enough—and the Australian Greens will stand with them.

We're the only party campaigning in Braddon to raise Newstart. We're the only party campaigning in Braddon to make sure that the minimum wage in this country is set at a minimum of 60 per cent of the median income. We'll stand with them. We'll stand for a better society in Australia—the kind of society that demands that the big corporates pay what they owe; a society that looks after the sick as well as the healthy, the old, the young, the poor, people working on the minimum wage and those people who cannot find work. To those people, particularly those people in Braddon, I say: the Australian Greens and our fantastic candidate Jarrod Edwards have got your back.

I rise to put on the record for anybody who wasn't watching in the last week a really clear indication of what this government thinks is much more important than the health and education of the people of this nation—and that is giving a $7,000 a year tax cut to investment bankers and taking a $17 billion tax cut away from schools and giving that instead to the big banks. You can see an amazing contrast between the priorities of those who are on the government benches and Labor, who believe that it is not just this generation that should benefit from investing in education but that those who follow on from us should also benefit. Young people in this country should be assured that they are able to get a decent education in any primary school across the country, at any early childhood education centre and at any TAFE. No area of the education sector is safe from the attacks of this government.

Governing is all about priorities—and this government has got all of its priorities wrong. Labor will never support the hugely expensive tax cuts of an arrogant and out-of-touch government. The priority that is driving the agenda of the parliament this week—tax cuts for big business—follows terrible legislation passed last week that will see people who are earning $200,000 get a $7,000 tax cut. They are not knocking on the doors of this place saying, 'Give me a cheque for $7,000 because I can't make ends meet.'

People are coming to this parliament daily—and government members, if they were to tell the truth, would let you know this is the case—saying they cannot access the basic services they need. I met someone at a function last weekend who told me a teenager who is currently seeking treatment for cancer at Penrith hospital has had his treatment delayed because of cuts to that hospital. And it is not just cuts to Penrith hospital and that family; cuts to our health system are being implemented by this government daily, while they are out there spinning a pack of lies to the rest of the community about how they care about hardworking Australians. Well, the facts simply belie what they are telling the Australian people.

I will talk about a couple of hospitals. Broken Hill is a great area of New South Wales. We have a fantastic candidate running in the seat of Parkes, Jack Ayoub, who will be trying to represent that community and help people understand what Labor has to offer. But I can tell you what Labor will not be doing, and that is: endorsing what this government has done. The Far West hospital in Parkes and Broken Hill is subject to a cut of $1.15 million between 2017 and 2020. That is money that hospital can ill afford to lose. Local families in that community and the regions that surround it need that hospital to function. They have concerns about lead levels for young children in that community. They have major concerns about suicide. They have high-risk occupations where they need the capacity of emergency response—and this government is taking $1.15 million from that hospital while they want to give $17 billion to the big banks and pay $7,000, in a tax cut, to somebody on $200,000. It simply doesn't make sense if you believe in an equitable country.

In western New South Wales, between 2017 and 2020, this government will take $2.84 million out of Dubbo hospital. Yet they show up here, they smile and they keep telling people: 'We're looking after you. We've got your back. We'll look after your children. You can entrust the future to us.' Well, we certainly cannot do that. And they are doing that in seats that they hold. In the Treasurer's seat of Cook in south-eastern Sydney, the Sutherland Hospital is subject to $2.38 million worth of cuts.

I have been to headspace centres, the wonderful youth mental health centres across the country—35 of them, in fact, including two in the Sutherland area in the seat of Cook. And I can tell you: there is great concern among the people working with young people in headspace centres about the capacity of the Sutherland Hospital to respond to young people in a mental health crisis and their families. Yet knowing that, and living in that community, Mr Morrison, the Treasurer of this country, has taken $2.83 million off them—and all to cobble together some money so that they can spend it on giving $7,000 to people in that electorate and around the country who are already earning $200,000. Let me tell you: you can earn an awful lot of money but, if your child has a mental health crisis, you need a hospital that is properly funded and you need headspace centres that are properly funded, because you are a vulnerable family. Money will not protect you from sickness. Money will not protect you from cancer coming to your family. Money will not protect you from the need for those basic services. Labor supports the provision of those services and we will support that every day over arbitrary, unnecessary and excessive tax cuts to the top end of town. I don't need another $7,000. I'd rather see that go to my local hospital, because a lot of people will rely on their hospital, and their $7,000, cobbled together with somebody else's $7,000, might just be enough to provide them with the treatment they need for their son or daughter, and that's the difference between Labor and Liberal.

I want to make a couple of remarks around the cuts that have impacted education in this country under this government. I go first to the seat of Farrer, to apprentices trying to access services, trying to access the learning they want to undertake. In the duty electorate that I look after, the seat of Farrer, represented by Minister Ley, our candidate, Kieran Dabsch, sees a community where there has been a 42 per cent decline in apprenticeships between 2013 and 2017. There are 1,691 fewer apprentices in the seat of Hume where Labor's candidate, Aoife Champion, is already out on the ground, under this government, which is cobbling together money as it pulls away services from TAFE to fund $7,000 tax discounts for very wealthy people.

In the seat of Parkes, where Labor's candidate, Jack Ayoub, is already out campaigning, there was a 47 per cent reduction in the number of apprenticeships between September 2013 and September 2017. That's 1,765 people, predominantly young people, in the seat of Parkes who have not had the opportunity to learn the skills in order to get a job and move ahead because of cuts by this government. In the seat of Robertson, where I live on the Central Coast, there are 840 young people, who have a champion in Anne Charlton—Labor's candidate for that seat—whose lives could have been transformed in that period between 2013 and 2017, but they have lost their chance to get an apprenticeship and training because of this government's cuts to education and because of its abrogation of its responsibilities to TAFE. That is the sort of government that we have.

It's in the detail that we see how different the value sets are between the government and a Labor government, if it came into being. I want to put on the record: if a Shorten Labor government were elected, we propose that we would conduct an inquiry into Australia's post-secondary education system—how VET, TAFE and uni intersect. We would scrap up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn the skills that Australia needs and invest $100 million in modernising TAFE facilities around the country. God knows that needs to happen after the wholesale destruction of TAFE undertaken by Liberal governments across this country, and the leading of that charge by this federal government. We would guarantee that at least two out of three Commonwealth training dollars would go to TAFE. We would ensure that one in every 10 jobs on Commonwealth-priority projects was filled by Australian apprentices. There is a very big difference: $17 billion for the banks or for further education and health. There is a difference between Labor and Liberal. We need a Labor government for this country.

Well, where would the Labor Party be without the banks? Today I read in The Australian a full list of the many millions of dollars worth of property owned by the luminaries of the Labor Party—multiple properties for multiple MPs. But you know what? It's not a problem for me. In fact, I like to see that kind of aspiration, that kind of planning for one's financial future, that kind of effort to get one and one's family ahead. It's fascinating reading because of the sheer hypocrisy of the Labor Party coming in here and attempting to crush the personal aspirations of others, of fighting working Australians who demonstrate all of the traits that built this country and made it strong—a desire to get ahead, make sensible investment decisions, make sacrifices, save, prepare a nest egg for their retirement.

I could be describing the characteristics of Liberal and National Party voters, but these are members of the Labor Party. All, no doubt, are well leveraged with bank loans. But the very bank loans they depend on come from the people they come in here and rant and rave against day after day. They complain on a personal level, because of their competitive position, if there's an increase in fees or charges from banks, but they're happy to sabotage the needs and wants of Australians in their own interests to sandbag their personal political positions to try and get some advantage in here. They're quite happy to grandfather the proposed changes to negative gearing to suit their own personal interests but keep other Australians off that ladder of opportunity that once mattered to the Labor Party. They have now rebranded themselves as the party of envy, the killjoys of other people's aspirations.

I still believe Australia is an aspirational country. Both its history and its present ring with aspiration. But we've got, in the opposition, a bunch of knockers. They don't even represent their own tradition. The genesis of the Labor Party was in the improvement of the lives of hardworking shearers in the sheds, giving them a hand to become a greater contributor to Australian society. But now it's all just a big attempt to divide this nation with the politics of envy. But I'm an optimist. I believe that most of the Labor Party don't agree with this strategy of being relentlessly negative without considering the merits of each policy. So ruthless is their desire to win government that we've seen that Mr Shorten will take any position that he thinks will further that possibility. I've seen the flip-flops year after year, whether by Mr Bowen, Mr Shorten or Mr Leigh. All of them have said that cutting corporate tax is a policy that will bring great benefit to the Australian people. But, then again, if you only stand for your own political interests, really, you value nothing.

Senator Stoker, would you just resume your seat. Senator Gallacher, on a point of order?

I've listened carefully to the contribution from Senator Stoker. I refer to the standing order about senators not reading speeches and I ask you to consider that in relation to her contribution.

Yes, thank you, Senator Gallacher. Senator Stoker, there is a standing order against reading speeches; however, I'm sure you're just using copious notes, so feel free to continue.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I'm happy to accommodate the needs—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

How about this? We'll focus on a few facts and figures that demonstrate that, in this matter of public interest, we have nothing more than an exercise in divisiveness. The truth is that the strong economy that tax cuts for individuals and for corporations delivers empowers this government to deliver essential services. That's the good news here. When we cut corporate taxes, we increase investment, we increase job creation, we tighten the labour market, we raise wages and we increase the welfare and the wealth of all Australians. In doing so, we have more Australians contributing to revenue.

This allows us to make great investments like spending 53 per cent more in Longman than was the case under the previous Labor government. Don't believe the Labor lies you'll see on the leaflets being peddled around Longman. Funding for Caboolture Hospital and the health district around there is up 53 per cent. Yet over and over we hear Labor lies about funding of hospitals in Longman. It's shameful. We heard more of this class-envy nonsense today from Mr Shorten. We heard that there will be a repeal of the tax cuts that were delivered to small and medium-size businesses with a turnover of between $10 million and $50 million. There's even going to be a reconsideration of the cutting of taxes to businesses with a turnover of just $2 million, without a shred of consultation with the party room. I know I'd be very frustrated if that was how my party was run.

Nothing is sacred in the effort to divide this nation—to try to make people turn against one another—based on some formulation of envy. The truth that cuts through all this class rhetoric is that, even with the benefit of the coalition's tax cuts delivered last week, the top four per cent of earners today pay 30 per cent of tax now, but under the coalition's plan, fully implemented, they will pay 36 per cent of tax revenue. In fact, the burden on those who earn more will only increase. That reflects the fact that we not only have to cut taxes for all across the board in order to unlock the economic potential of this country but are doing it in a way that recognises the fact that there are many people on small and medium-size incomes who are doing it tough. While a person who earns $30,000 will pay around $2,200 in tax, which is about seven per cent of their income, someone earning $200,000 will pay $67,000 in tax, or around 34 per cent of their income. Any way you dice that up, the person who's earning $200,000 is paying their share. They're paying about five times the amount of tax being paid by the person on $30,000.

It's all well and good for the opposition to come in here and talk about this magic number of $7,000. But the truth is that you need to be paying a certain amount of tax in order to even make a cut of that nature possible. We can't give a $7,000 tax cut to those earning $30,000, because they pay only $2,200. We have so equitably distributed the tax cuts in this measure that it can only be in the interests of all Australians and of the Australian economy as a whole that we continue to press on and deliver more for all Australians, including essential services.

It's quite interesting to listen to some of the debate here on the floor of the chamber today. Last Wednesday, 20 June, I set out the reasons I supported personal tax cuts. Let me repeat that: personal tax cuts. It was because I wanted to see all hardworking Australians receive tax relief into the future, and it's going to be a rebate for the next four years for them. It's quite interesting that Labor did not want to give their voters—their supporters—this tax cut. My colleague Senator Georgiou and I actually considered a number of issues. We looked carefully at different occupations and the number of individuals who would or would not benefit from each stage of the personal tax cuts. I reminded Labor that tens of thousands of electricians, plumbers, nurses, secondary school teachers, mechanics and welders earn more than $90,000 and would miss out on a permanent tax cut if Labor opposed stage 2. I don't know why they weren't advised properly about this. They did not want to give these people tax relief or tax cuts.

In today's MPI debate, Labor were once again twisting and changing this to justify their position. What they're putting across to the Australian people is wrong. They're saying that it's only going to be the big end of town, the investment bankers, that will benefit from this $7,000 tax cut. But they're not looking at those people who earn up to the $200,000 who are going to get tax relief. I say now: Australians need it. They are doing it tough, they really are. But they want to cut back on them getting any incentives whatsoever.

It was wonderful here: Senator O'Neill was saying that she doesn't want the $7,000 and that she's going to donate it to a hospital. I'd like to see that happen. I remember last year in the chamber here, when there was a vote that we do not accept our pay rises until the budget is in surplus. Guess what? On this side of the chamber, only six people voted for it. One Nation was there. Where was everyone else? Over there! Where was Labor? There, on the other side of the chamber. They weren't interested; they voted themselves pay rises. The hypocrisy of the whole lot of them makes me, and Australians, fed up. So don't deny other Australians tax relief or rebates when you want to take your own pay packets!

I've donated my $4,000 to the Young Veterans at Caboolture. I've actually donated money to on Meals on Wheels and I've donated to veterans' associations, and that's worth a lot more than the $7,000 that you say is the tax cut that I'm giving to myself. Those tax cuts, up to that amount of money, don't come in until 2024-25. The whole fact is, who's to say that I'm going to be here to get the tax cuts? It's all right for you to dish it out but you're not prepared to take it back.

What did Labor do? The day following my speech supporting personal tax cuts, Labor commenced a rabid campaign against me in an attempt to cover the massive blunder they had made by not supporting tax cuts for their heartland workers. Labor robocalled Longman voters with the message that I had voted for the big end of town, which was understood by callers to my office to mean that I had already voted in respect of the government's proposal to give all companies tax cuts. They did not tell the truth to the people. It was nothing to do with the company tax cuts, and I have made that quite clear. One Nation will not be supporting company tax cuts. So I haven't flip-flopped. I said no originally, then I said yes. Then I have said no, and I've stuck to it.

Do you know what's wrong, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall? Bill Shorten wanted company tax cuts years ago. But Bill Shorten has changed his opinion now and said he won't give them, and so have a lot of the others on the other side. I have taken a well-managed approach to this. I will look at legislation and if I decide it's wrong I'm not going to apologise for backing down and saying it's wrong.

I rise to join this debate in relation to putting health and education ahead of the tax cuts.

Just firstly, I will address Senator Hanson's contribution. I think it's really important to note that, once again, she may be slightly confused about the Labor position. It's quite clear that Labor has indicated it would support stage 1 of the Personal Income Tax Plan. We wanted to split the bill. In fact, the tax cuts that we wanted to introduce were actually double those that the government is proposing. We understand that households are under pressure, and the relief that we want to provide is far more immediate and more significant than what the government is proposing. But what we don't want to do is to provide relief to the big end of town, where it's not needed and where it won't provide the stimulus to the economy that is actually required at this point in time.

Australia is at a crossroads, and we can either become a more equal society or a less equal society, the choice is with us. I think it is extremely important that Australians understand this crossroads that we are at, and this is a matter of public importance. I say that because I believe that the government is putting us in a position where their fiscal recklessness is endangering the underpinnings of our fair and equitable society.

Health and education are fundamental to the support that we provide to people. It's fundamental to aspiration. If you put those things at risk, then you are ultimately putting the stability of our society at risk. Why do I say those things are at risk? Because I believe, and as credible economic commentators have said, that stage 2 and stage 3 of the personal income tax cuts are particularly unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. You don't have to believe me when I say that; go to the Grattan Institute submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the Personal Income Tax Plan. I think most people would accept that the Grattan Institute is not exactly a cheer squad for the Labor Party, but it has come to a position where it says it is concerned about the Personal Income Tax Plan, particularly stage 3. Mr Daley, when he gave evidence to our inquiry, said:

Six or seven years is a very long time and, economically, the chances of a significant economic downturn over the next six or seven years are pretty large—that's the law of averages historically.

He went on to say:

Inherently, the full package is going to cost the budget, on our estimates, a little over $22 billion in 2027-28.

That was based on the PBO estimates. He added it was going to cost 'about $24 billion in the following year', which is 2028-29. He then said:

It does mean that the Commonwealth budget will inherently have less flexibility in a significant downturn. And it's also an issue that Australia is going to probably go into the next economic downturn with much less of a buffer than it went into the last one.

This is the Grattan Institute. As I said, they're not exactly a cheer squad for the Labor Party, but they have expressed their serious concerns about whether or not these tax cuts are sustainable in the longer term. Most Australians understand that when you legislate significant changes down the track—we know stage 3 is the fastest-growing part of the tax plan, growing at 12 per cent per annum—and when you legislate for significant tax expenditure down the track that is going to grow at that sort of pace, then you are taking a gamble with Australia's future. At risk here is support for our health and education and other fundamental services that we rely on.

It's now, more than ever, that Australians need the protection that only a Labor government can provide. Right now our schools are under attack from this arrogant, out-of-touch Prime Minister, who is prioritising tax breaks to the top end of town over funding to our schools. With his Liberal-National colleagues, he is ripping $17 billion out of schools across the country. Is it a coincidence that this figure is exactly the same amount of money that he wants to provide to his mates in big business through tax breaks to the big banks? These are the same mates that this Prime Minister has shielded for so long, running a protection racket for the banks for 601 days before ultimately being dragged, kicking and screaming, into announcing a royal commission into the banks—once they gave him permission to do so.

How does this Prime Minister justify his protection of the banks? How can he possibly be advocating for billions and billions of dollars in tax handouts to the banks while we're in the middle of a royal commission that's uncovering such abhorrent behaviour? Here are just a couple of the headlines we have seen recently. The Financial Review reported yesterday about how ANZ forced 162 farmers from their land after expanding into agribusiness without adequate preparation or safeguards. On 31 May, we saw a Sydney Morning Herald article reporting revelations that NAB took proceeds from a customer's home sale, which they weren't entitled to, to pay down a small business loan. On 30 April, ABC News, along with many other outlets, reported the resignation of AMP's chairman in the wake of the shocking fee-for-no-service scandal—a dodgy practice also employed by the big banks. It's not just AMP that has to answer for this, but I haven't got all day and so I won't dwell on that issue. On 21 March, the AFR reported evidence that Westpac relied on verification of customer income and expenditure details by car dealers for car loans. Let's not forget the doctoring of kids' Dollarmite accounts by Commonwealth Bank staff who were under pressure to meet incentive targets. This is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the behaviours being exposed by the royal commission, so how can we possibly reward the very same institutions with a tax cut?

When it comes to the education system, we believe that it has transformative power. I've said this in the chamber before, but I want to give a few examples of what these cuts mean in real terms to some of the schools in my duty electorates. I mention Maranoa, where we see that Warwick State High School will lose $770,000, Warwick West State School will lose $440,000 and Warwick Central State School will lose $240,000. Let's go to Flynn, currently held by Mr O'Dowd, a National MP. Gladstone State High School will lose $1.35 million over two years. Toolooa State High School will lose $870,000. Gladstone Central State School will lose $300,000. Gladstone West State School will lose $570,000. Closer to my home in Brisbane, looking at the outer suburbs, in Petrie and Dickson, held by Liberal MPs Mr Howarth and Mr Dutton respectively, Pine Rivers State High School has had $1.06 million ripped out of the budget, North Lakes State College will lose $2½ million and Dakabin State High School will lose $730,000.

I want to go through what these cuts mean in the Longman electorate, which is very topical. I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to go doorknocking with our outstanding candidate Susan Lamb in the seat of Longman. You don't have to talk too hard to the average voters of Longman to understand how out of touch this Prime Minister is and how out of touch this government are in terms of what their priorities are, which are twisted and so far removed from the day-to-day lives of the good people of Longman. In Longman state schools, we see the LNP cutting over $18 million over the next two years. If I had time, I would go through those.

We can talk about TAFE and universities as well. We're seeing $270 million in new cuts to TAFE, and the MYEFO froze funding for university places. These are cuts that Australia cannot afford. When it comes to health, there are hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of hospitals across the country. Caboolture Hospital will lose $2.9 million. Redcliffe Hospital will lose $4.2 million. Prince Charles Hospital at Chermside will lose $7.7 million. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital will lose $14.3 million. Lady Cilento Children's Hospital will lose $6.5 million. These are examples of the twisted priorities of this government. As I said, Australia is at a crossroads. We need a federal Labor government to take us in the right direction.

I thought that this was a debate about health and education, but I heard Labor speakers, particularly Senator O'Neill, talking totally about tax. I find it surprising that Senator O'Neill would. I thought, perhaps, that if she were going to talk about tax she would talk about Labor's proposal for negative gearing, because she would know all about that.

Senator O'Neill spent most of her time attacking the big end of town, the very wealthy, but then we look at today's front page of The Australian and find that Senator O'Neill is part of the big end of town. She not only owns her own house but has five investment properties. Talk about big end of town! You see it in the Labor Party all the time. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking. Senator O'Neill, I have no objection to you having investment properties, and I know you've probably worked hard for them, but don't blame others for the faults of yourself and people in your position. Senator O'Neill, I'm very pleased to see that one of your investment properties is up my way, in the wonderful Cairns suburb of Yorkeys Knob. Only the wealthy can buy there.

I repeat what is now part of the Australian lexicon: Labor lies. Regrettably, you've just heard a lot of the Labor lies from my good friend Senator Ketter. He said that the Caboolture Hospital lost money, which is an outright, outrageous, direct untruth. The Caboolture Hospital is documented to be receiving more money than it has received in the past.

Similarly, talking about the electorate of Longman, because of the government's childcare policy there are 7,100 families in the electorate of Longman—part of the one million families across the country—who will get a benefit from the government's new childcare policy.

Senator Ketter says certain schools are going to lose money. I challenge him, and any one of those schools, to show what they are getting today and what they will get under the coalition government's new reforms, where all of those schools that Senator Ketter mentioned will receive more funding than they're getting at the moment.

I'm delighted that Senator Ketter mentioned Longman, because I'm so proud of our candidate there, 'Big Trev Ruthenberg'. 'Big Trev' is a man of the people. He understands the people there. I know that my colleague Senator O'Sullivan has been with him for quite some time. I've been up there. He understands. He listens to people. He doesn't go around telling lies. He has exposed the Labor allegation about the Caboolture Hospital for the lie that it is. The Caboolture Hospital is now getting more money than it has ever got before. Where Senator Ketter gets his fantasy tales from I have no idea.

I think what Senator Ketter and many Labor people do is say what Labor promises they're going to deliver to these people—I don't know when, as they're not in government, or how they're going to deliver these increases—and then work back from there. But if you go on the actual facts of what hospitals in Longman are getting today and what it will be under our proposals it will be much more than they've received ever in the past. The same goes for child care—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

They are panicking, Senator O'Sullivan, you are quite correct. They know that in Trevor Ruthenberg the people of Longman have an outstanding candidate—one who's honest, who will listen to them and who hasn't denied the people of Caboolture.

She's been working in that seat and taking her pay for months—even years—when she knew she wasn't entitled to that pay. She knew from the very first time this citizenship issue arose that she was not eligible to sit in the Australian parliament and yet she continued to stay there, taking a handout, taking the taxpayers' money for wages and election support and taking allowances when she knew she wasn't entitled to them—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Again, as my friend and colleague Senator O'Sullivan said, she did this with the full knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. Mr Shorten went around Australia promising everybody that all of his team, including the member for Longman, were hunky-dory. No problem with the citizenship of this person and yet the member for Longman herself knew that she was not entitled to be receiving her pay cheque, she was not entitled to the allowances she was getting and she was not entitled to be down here pretending to represent the people of Longman.

With 'Big Trev Ruthenberg', that will change. He is an absolutely outstanding candidate—a man of the people. A man who's proved his worth to his community with the charitable works he's done all of his life and with the way he has helped people—real people—without thought of reward for himself. He is the sort of person that the people of Caboolture, of Bribie Island and of every other part of Longman need to represent them honestly and fairly in the federal parliament. I look forward to the day when he is sworn in to do exactly that.

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.

by leave—I present to the Senate a petition that is not in conformity with the standing orders, which has 129,140 signatures, calling for a phase-out of all live exports in Australia. I note that the petition has attracted nearly 10,000 additional signatures online since it was printed this week. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Thirty-seven years ago I brought a petition to the old Parliament House down the road to present to the then Minister for Primary Industry, Peter Nixon. In pre-social media days, 30,000 listeners to Melbourne's 3AW signed that petition calling for an end to live exports from Australia and it fell on deaf ears. The recent 60 Minutes expose, following on from Four Corners some years ago, showed that this cruelty still goes on despite what industry spokesmen are trying to tell you. I'm very proud that this year, nearly four decades later, well over 100,000 people have signed our petition for an end to this cruel practice. I thank those people from all over Australia for doing that, because this time I believe it will happen—phased in over five years, but it will happen.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present five reports from legislation committees as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business in respect of the 2018-19 budget estimates, together with the Hansardrecord of proceedings and documents presented to the committees.

On behalf of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Hume, I present additional information received by the committee in its inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018.

I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Advisory report—Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am pleased to present the committee's report on its review of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. The Prime Minister introduced the bill on 7 December 2017 and referred it to the committee for inquiry and report.

Foreign influence is, in many instances, quite legitimate and lawful. However, when done through an intermediary, the source of the influence is disguised and, in such circumstances, decision-makers and the public alike may be unaware of the influences being brought to bear on Australian government decision-making. The bill seeks to address that problem by establishing the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The scheme will involve a public register. That register is intended to provide visibility of the level and extent of covert or obscured foreign influence in the course of political and government decision-making in Australia. Under the bill, a person will be liable to register if they undertake certain activities that seek to influence Australian political or government decisions on behalf of individuals and entities that are closely linked to a foreign government.

During the committee's review of the bill, a large number of stakeholders supported its objective to provide transparency of the level and extent of covert foreign influence. However, as the committee's report notes, stakeholders did express concern over the implementation of that objective in the text of the bill. A central concern was the breadth of key definitions that establish a person's liability to register under the scheme. To address many of those concerns, the Attorney-General wrote to the committee proposing a number of significant amendments. The committee welcomed those proposed amendments as a substantial contribution to narrowing the bill.

The committee's report addresses both the bill as introduced and the Attorney-General's proposed amendments. Like many in this place, members of the committee have been concerned about the possibility of foreign parties influencing elections and government decisions in other liberal democracies. The committee roundly supports the establishment of the scheme as part of a suite of responses to address that challenge. In its report the committee has made 52 recommendations. Broadly, these recommendations address the following matters: (1) further refinement of the scheme's scope and the actors and activities that will be captured; (2) the activities that should be exempt from the scheme; (3) registrants' obligation for reporting and registering; (4) recalibrating the offences that will underpin the enforcement of the scheme; and (5) establishing appropriate oversight, review and implementation measures to ensure the scheme's effective operation.

On the recommendations that address the scope of the scheme, the committee has recommended further tightening of the definition of 'foreign entities' that will enliven a person's liability to register. These recommendations will provide greater clarity as to the scheme's purpose and to members of the Australian public when assessing their liability to register. The committee has also recommended that former cabinet ministers, ministers, members of parliament and former senior public servants should carry additional obligations and for a longer period of time. This is appropriate as these former office holders continue to occupy positions of influence, despite leaving office, in the Australian polity.

The committee has also recommended that these obligations extend to senior staff working for ministers. To ensure that the scheme is capturing only the activities of identified concern, the committee has recommended that a range of appropriately targeted exemptions be established in the bill. These include an exemption for charities, arts organisations and certain professions, such as tax agents, engaged in their ordinary representations to government.

The committee has also recommended a suite of measures to ensure that the obligations on registrants are appropriately framed. This includes amending the bill to provide clarity about ongoing disclosure requirements and reducing the time period for which records must be kept. Noting the broad powers of the secretary, the committee recommends some refinement to the processes and matters to be considered by the secretary before exercising those powers. This includes the power to issue provisional transparency notices to provide the subject of those notices adequate procedural fairness. The committee further recommends that the government give some consideration to the development of an independent administrator after an initial period of operation.

The committee has also considered the oversight and reporting architecture that will underpin the effective operation of the scheme. To that end, the committee recommends that various reviews and reports be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Lastly, the committee has recommended that a new scheme be developed for members of parliament to register their representations on behalf of foreign governments and related entities. The committee is of the view that it would be inappropriate for members of parliament to register and report to a departmental secretary. However, it is essential that visibility and transparency is also brought to bear on decision-makers in parliament. Accordingly, a parallel transparency scheme of influence for the parliament should be developed and apply to sitting members of this place and to members of the House.

The committee has recommended that the bill be passed following implementation of the recommendations in the report. I commend the report to the Senate.

Thank you, Senator Bushby. I'll go to Senator Lines—just a moment: Senator McKim, a point of order?

I understood that there was a question before the chair moved by Senator Bushby, and I'm wondering whether Senator Lines is actually contributing to that question or whether we're moving on, and if we are moving on whether the question actually needs to be put, because I had intended to make a contribution to the question before the chair, if possible.

Senator McKim, you're quite right in many respects, and I could have asked Senator Bushby whether he wanted to continue his remarks. If you want to make a contribution to that, now would be the appropriate time to do it.

My apologies for interrupting Senator Lines's contribution. I'll make a more lengthy contribution on both the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 when we get to my motion shortly. That motion seeks to refer both those pieces of legislation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. But I do want to just respond quickly to the comments made by Senator Bushby.

This legislation is being steamrolled through the parliament and the Senate in an unholy rush. As exhibit A to support that statement, I want to place on record that the Senate is being asked to examine, consider and vote on 270 amendments to these two bills having only seen those two amendments for the first time this afternoon—270 amendments on bills that have the potential to create the risk of fundamentally changing the way our democracy works and fundamentally impacting on the work of groups that make up civil society in this country. Civil society groups, non-government organisations, fight hard to defend our environment, to defend human rights and to hold government to account. They are absolutely essential in a thriving and vibrant democracy. For the Senate to be asked to consider 270 amendments having just seen them for the first time this afternoon is unconscionable and unreasonable, particularly when these bills deal with such serious issues.

Of course we need to guard against foreign interference in our democracy. We have seen the result of foreign interference in the United States election which elected Donald Trump as President. We have seen foreign interference in the Brexit vote in the UK. Of course we need to guard against similar things happening in Australia, but the risk and the danger here is that, in trying to achieve that aim in such a rushed and ad hoc way, we will see significant consequences—to civil society, to non-government organisations and to things like peaceful protests, which could be criminalised by the provisions in this legislation.

I want that firmly on the record and I will make a more lengthy and detailed contribution about the risks that these bills pose to fundamental rights and freedoms in our country when I move to have them referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee shortly.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, I present the first report of 2018—Hours of meeting and routine of businessand I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senators would recall that a number of changes to the hours of meeting and routine of business for the Senate were adopted as temporary orders at the end of last year. These changes provided for five-minute speeches on the Wednesday adjournment, so that more speakers can speak; removed the option for 20-minutes speeches on the Tuesday adjournment; provided for a midday start to sittings on Tuesday; and it moved private senators' bills from Thursday to Monday morning. The Procedure Committee undertook to review the changes before the end of June this year. As noted in this brief report, the committee has now reviewed the amendments to standing orders 54, 55, 57 and 59 made by the temporary order and considers that they are working well and recommends that those standing orders now be amended in the terms of the temporary order. The motion I have moved would adopt the recommendations. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee, I present the committee's report on the waste and recycling industry in Australia, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I'm very pleased to speak to this report today, Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling industry in Australia. I haven't been on a committee, or been chair of a committee, that's had such unanimous support from stakeholders for something like leadership on an issue, especially an environmental issue, since I've been a senator. Today, I'm very proud to say that, in a rare moment of consensus and tripartisan support, we have a report here before us on what has been, and still is, a crisis in our recycling industry in this country.

There are a number of key recommendations here. There is no dissenting report. Labor have put some additional comments in, but they're very supportive of the report. I'm very proud that, as a Senate, we've been able to do some fantastic work at a time when it was critically needed.

I would like to say that I initiated this inquiry after the Four Corners episode mid-last year called 'Trashed'. I'd like to pay my respect to the journalist Caro Meldrum-Hanna, who did a fantastic job of uncovering illegal dumping of waste across states and, of course, the presence of dangerous stockpiles that have been building up in a number of waste streams around the country. While the inquiry was underway, looking at, for example, how we might get some national standards in place for things like dumping of waste and landfill levies, we had the China Sword policy enacted.

The Chinese government decided that they would stop taking Australia's contaminated waste streams, which they've been doing for a number of years. This led to a crisis in this country, because suddenly the rug was pulled out from underneath the feet of the recycling industry. Of course, this went all the way through to local governments and, ultimately, to consumers. For many years now, Australians have relied on selling our waste, whether it's cardboard or soft plastics. Very little glass actually goes to China, but other waste streams do. The contamination in these waste streams has been very high. The Chinese have been taking our waste for some time but they've decided to set a new policy where they'll only take virtually uncontaminated waste from countries like Australia.

Our system is not set up to deal with the contamination issue at this point in time, so we had a collapse in commodity prices for things such as soft plastics, cardboard and newsprint. And, of course, suddenly the industry was no longer viable. The MRFs—the material recovery facilities—couldn't onsell the product that they were taking from transport companies and local governments. We had contracts being breached all around the country and we had state governments pumping in emergency funding, at least to try to keep the system going. And while this was happening we were lucky enough to have our federal inquiry in place.

We took evidence all around the country, especially in Brisbane, New South Wales and Victoria. Of course, we also received evidence from South Australia and witnesses from Western Australia. We have a series of recommendations here before us that the industry, industry associations and a number of other stakeholders—local government and local government associations and environment groups—believe can actually fix the waste crisis. More importantly, as the title of the report suggests—'Never waste a crisis'—we can turn this towards opportunity. We can become self-sufficient, recycle our own waste in this country and reprocess that into better products. We can actually solve an environmental problem while creating thousands of new jobs.

The recycling and reprocessing industry in Australia employs nearly 50,000 Australians, more than the mining industry, and yet we've been sending a lot of our high-value waste overseas because it's been easy to do so. Well, it's no longer easy to do so. Although other countries have taken waste and stepped in where the Chinese government have stopped taking our imports, it's not going to be a long-term solution. We actually need to fix it by investing in our recycling industry here in Australia and by putting in place new processes for sorting of waste and, of course, ultimately, for recycling and reprocessing.

I'll just very quickly read out some of the key recommendations. First, I want to also thank the committee for their hard work—the committee staff and, of course, senators from all political parties who participated in this series of recommendations. There are 18 key recommendations, including:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government show leadership through the urgent implementation of the 16 strategies established under the National Waste Policy.

The National Waste Policy was put in place in 2009 by the Labor government. Unfortunately the 16 key strategies in that policy haven't all been implemented—in fact, most of them haven't. Labor did do a lot of work around the Product Stewardship Act, but, sadly, even this chamber recently scrapped the Product Stewardship Advisory Group that was working to make sure that we saw a cradle-to-the-grave approach, or a circular economy approach, to various waste streams.

The committee also recommended:

… that the Australian Government prioritise waste reduction and recycling above waste-to-energy, and seek a commitment through the Meeting of Environment Ministers of all levels of government to the waste hierarchy.

We are very concerned that the federal environment minister and even the Prime Minister have been flagging that somehow the solution to our waste crisis is to burn waste in this country. The waste hierarchy suggests to us very strongly that it's right down the waste hierarchy. It's maybe slightly above landfill, but it's not the solution to a waste crisis—nor is it a solution to the crisis of litter that we have in this country that is polluting our oceans.

Another key recommendation is:

… that the Australian and state and territory governments agree to a phase out of petroleum-based single-use plastics by 2023. The scope of this commitment would require careful consideration and should be developed through the Meeting of Environment Ministers.

This is to bring us into line with what the rest of the world are talking about doing—removing single-use plastics. It's not going to happen straightaway, but we absolutely need to commit to it and put in place a plan. Part of that—another recommendation—is to immediately set up a cooperative research centre, with federal funding and industry participation, to look at how we're going to replace single-use plastics with other more sustainable products. We can look at all sorts of different kinds of single-use plastics, like straws and balloons. There are a whole range of things we need to get rid of. I can see Senator Moore nodding her head; she's been a big advocate of banning balloons. This is happening all around the world now because we realise what damage these plastics are doing when they make their way into our waterways and ultimately our oceans. I think a plastics cooperative research centre is absolutely critical. It can create jobs. It's about research and development. It's about innovation. It's about investment in rebooting recycling in this country.

I'll just read out a couple of the other key recommendations—and refer the Senate to the other ones:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory and local governments to assist recyclers to increase the diversion of material from landfill; improve the quality of materials recovered through collection programs; improve the sorting of materials at recycling facilities; and assist manufacturers to increase the amount of recycled material used in production.

Then there is recommendation 8:

8.36 The committee recommends the Australian Government set mandatory targets for all government departments in relation to the recycled content of materials bought directly or provided by private contractors.

8.37 The committee recommends that state and territory and local governments also pursue sustainable procurement policies to ensure strong domestic markets for recycled material.

This was one of the key recommendations—for more stakeholders—from 2009 that was never implemented and that must be committed to by governments. Government needs to be the market for these recycled products and to ensure that we build a demand for these products as well as look at investing in the supply side of the industry.

There are a whole range of other recommendations here that I would ask senators to have a look at. They all make perfect sense. They all go back to a plan that's nearly 10 years old that we've never implemented in this country. Had we implemented this plan nearly 10 years ago in 2009 we wouldn't be in the crisis that we're in now. Australians are good recyclers, but they've been let down by local, state and federal governments. All participants in the inquiry said they wanted the federal government to show leadership on this issue. This is an issue that cuts across all the political spectrums. Everybody likes recycling. They all take it seriously. They don't expect to be let down by the government. This is a plan, a blueprint, to reboot recycling in the country. I ask everybody to get on board.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Gallacher, I present the report on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the provision of hearing services under the NDIS, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In addition, I present two government responses to advisory reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017, as listed 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 (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

June 2018

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee) report on the Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 (the Bill).

The original Bill as introduced sought to implement changes to:

These changes were contained in 18 schedules:

Schedule 1: Creation of the Jobseeker payment

Schedule 2: Cessation of Widow B Pension

Schedule 3: Cessation of Wife Pension

Schedule 4: Cessation of Bereavement Allowance

Schedule 5: Cessation of Sickness Allowance

Schedule 6: Cessation of Widow Allowance

Schedule 7: Cessation of Partner Allowance

Schedule 8: Minister's Rules

Schedule 9: Changes to activity tests for persons aged 55 to 59

Schedule 10: Start day for some participation payments

Schedule 11: Intent to claim provisions

Schedule 12: Establishment of a drug testing trial

Schedule 13: Removal of exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence

Schedule 14: Changes to reasonable excuses

Schedule 15: Targeted compliance framework

Schedule 16: Streamlining tax file number collection

Schedule 17: Information management

Schedule 18: Aligning social security and disability discrimination law

On 22 June 2017, the Senate, referred the provisions of the Bill to the Committee for inquiry with the report tabled on 6 September 2017. The Committee received 63 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, particularly covering:

Having considered the feedback, in its tabled report 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. The Australian Greens made an additional recommendation that there be an independent public review of the compliance system for people who are unemployed before any reform to the existing framework. Further detail is provided on the following pages.

The Bill passed Parliament on 27 March 2018 with Government and non-Government amendments. The Bill received Royal Assent on 11 April 2018.

Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

Recommendations made by the Committee

1. The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed.

Government Response: Supported.

The Government announced a comprehensive Welfare Reform package in the 2017-18 Budget.

The original Bill contained an integrated suite of measures to deliver a simpler and fairer welfare system, including:

The measures are designed to build a simpler system that provides more encouragement and support for people transitioning to work. The Bill demonstrates that the Government is committed to improving the integrity of the welfare system and ensuring that recipients receive the necessary support and incentives to address barriers to employment, to look for work and to take a suitable job when it is available. This will benefit not just the job seekers themselves but also their families, the wider community and the Australian economy.

The current income support system of multiple payments is very complex and difficult for people to navigate. The new JobSeeker Payment will be the main working age payment, consolidating seven current payments, and creating a single payment for those of working age with capacity to work now or in the near future. The JobSeeker Payment will simplify the income support system and treat people in similar circumstances consistently.

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

Government Response: Noted.

The following addresses key concerns raised in the dissenting reports. Jobseeker Payment Measures (Schedules 1-8) The dissenting Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reports raised concerns about the impact of the changes on Wife Pension recipients who do not transfer to the Age Pension or Carer Payment. These recipients who are aged between 39 and 63 will remain frozen at their current rate when they transition to the new JobSeeker Payment and will not be worse off.

With regards to the 200 Wife Pension recipients currently living overseas who are not anticipated to transition to another income support payment, a large proportion of these women currently receive a part-rate of Wife Pension because they have insufficient Australian Working Life Residency to receive a full rate of payment. Some Wife Pension recipients have their payment reduced because of their levels of income and assets, which indicates that they have other income sources besides their Wife Pension.

The dissenting Committee reports also raised concerns about the impact of replacing Bereavement Allowance with the JobSeeker Payment. The existing bereavement arrangements create unnecessary administrative inefficiencies and complexity for bereaved people. Streamlining these arrangements will help to simplify the welfare system.

During the Senate debate of the Bill, the Government acknowledged that some pregnant women may receive less assistance under the new arrangements than they currently do. This is because pregnant women can receive bereavement support until their child is born, which may be longer than the standard 14 weeks available to other people. For this reason, amendments were made to Schedule 4 of the Bill to increase the additional upfront support for these women from two fortnight's payment, to three fortnight's payment, plus an additional amount determined by the length of the recipient's bereavement period. The additional amount starts at $1,000 for pregnant women who give birth or their pregnancy ends within 14 weeks of their partner's death, with the maximum amount payable up to $4,250. This will ensure that pregnant women who suffer the loss of a partner will generally be no worse off financially compared to current payment arrangements. Similar arrangements will be in place for bereaved pregnant mothers on Youth Allowance. The Senate passed this amendment to Schedule 4 (Cessation of Bereavement Allowance) in December 2017.

Subsequently, the Government supported an amendment by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party which changed the calculation of the upfront lump sum amount for non-pregnant bereaved people so that the amount paid is broadly equivalent to the amount of Bereavement Allowance paid over 14 weeks. This ensures that recipients claiming bereavement support under JobSeeker Payment or Youth Allowance (other) will generally be no worse off under the new arrangements compared to the support currently available under Bereavement Allowance.

Minor amendments were also made to Schedule 6 to change the start date of the Cessation of Widow Allowance measure and to better align the mutual obligation exemption wording with the relevant qualification.

Amend the activity test for persons aged 55 to 59 (Schedule 9) The Bill will also strengthen the employment focus of mutual obligations and better connect mature age job seekers with the labour market, while still recognising that volunteering can be a valuable stepping stone into paid work.

In the 2017-18 Budget it was announced that job seekers aged 55-59 would no longer be able to fully satisfy the activity test through undertaking 30 hours per fortnight of any combination of paid and voluntary work. Instead, they would need to undertake at least 30 hours of a combination of paid work and voluntary work, with at least 15 hours of those hours in paid work. There are 40,000 job seekers currently within this age group, and around 7,500 of them meet their mutual obligation requirements through volunteering alone and are not expected to look for work. These job seekers do not benefit by being excused from looking for a job.

Data shows that mature age people are 13 times more likely to find work when actively looking for it. The OECD has previously recommended that mutual obligations for mature jobseekers be strengthened and made consistent with other cohorts.

However, to secure passage of the Bill through the Senate, the Government amendments have been passed to impose a time limit of 12 months for job seekers aged 55 to 59 to be subject to the proposed activity test changes, instead of for the full term of income support receipt.

For their first 12 months on an unemployment payment, mature-aged job seekers will be able to satisfy the activity test through a combination of at least 30 hours per fortnight of paid and voluntary work, with at least 15 hours being in paid work. After 12 months in receipt of payment this would be relaxed so that any combination of paid and voluntary work of at least 30 hours per fortnight would fully meet the activity test. Individuals who have been receiving payment for more than 12 months at the commencement of the measure will not be subject to the changes in the activity test. As an indication of the number of job seekers who may be affected following this amendment, at 31 December 2017, around 1,100 job seekers who were fully meeting their requirements through voluntary and/or paid work had been in employment services for less than 12 months.

The Australian Labor Party and the Greens' dissenting reports suggest that the measure would have an adverse impact on the volunteering sector. However, neither the original nor amended measure would stop older job seekers from undertaking approved voluntary work or have more than minimal impact on the number of volunteers or the hours contributed towards the volunteering sector.

The Australian Labor Party and the Greens' dissenting reports also suggest that the Government has not provided any additional support to help these job seekers. However, the Government is investing over $110 million in a mature age reskilling package to help older Australians re-train and find work in addition to existing programs such as the Restart wage subsidy program.

Faster connection to employment services (Schedule 10)

The Bill will also encourage job seekers to connect more quickly with employment service providers such as jobactive and Transition to Work. For job seekers subject to RapidConnect, their Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance (other) payment will generally commence from the date they attended their initial appointment with their provider, instead of being paid from the date the recipient first contacted the Department of Human Services or lodged their claim, as they currently are.

Connecting job seekers more quickly with employment services will improve their chances of finding work faster, and this measure will encourage this behaviour.

The Australian Labor Party and the Greens' dissenting reports both raised the issue of extended delays for job seekers due to inability to attend appointments and the impacts on vulnerable job seekers. Labor's report also raised concerns on how this measure would impact on job seekers in rural and remote areas. However, the measure already addresses these concerns.

As soon as a job seeker submits a claim to the Department of Human Services, they will be advised of available provider appointments in their area. Where an appointment is available within two business days, the job seeker will be required to attend that appointment and their payment will commence from the day they attend. Because providers are contractually required to have appointments available within two business days, this is ordinarily what will occur.

However, if for some reason the only available appointment is more than two days away, the job seeker will be required to attend the next available appointment. In this case, once they attend the appointment, their payment will commence from the date the appointment was booked, not the date they attended, so that they are not unfairly penalised for the provider's inability to provide an appointment within two business days.

In both cases payment will be made on the job seeker's first scheduled payday. As is currently the case, payment is usually made in arrears and backdated to the appropriate commencement day, which will be the date the job seeker attended their provider appointment if it was within two days of them submitting their claim or the date the appointment was booked if an appointment was not available within two days.

Vulnerable job seekers who are currently exempt from RapidConnect will also not be subject to this measure. This includes job seekers who are medically or otherwise exempt from their requirements, youth unable to live at home, or those with a disability or illness affecting their capacity to work. The measure will also not apply to job seekers in remote areas that are serviced by the Community Development Program.

The Government considers that with these safeguards, this is a fair measure that simply makes income support for able job seekers contingent upon them showing they are genuine about finding work by connecting with an employment services provider as soon as possible.

Intent to Claim Provisions (Schedule 11)

Following amendments to the Bill, the new Schedule 11—Intent to Claim Provisions, retains and amends the current intent to claim provisions in the social security law. The intent to claim provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances. The amendment includes an instrument making power to allow a legislative instrument to define a vulnerable claimant for the purposes of the intent to claim provisions.

Vulnerable claimants will be those who have a genuine difficulty in collating their documentation, and will include, but not be limited to, being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement.

For all other claimants, the date of claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. The purpose of the measure is to encourage social security claimants to provide timely and complete information in support of claims.

It is reasonable for applicants to provide information that is available to them when lodging a claim and to do so in a timely manner. The 'intent to claim' provisions were introduced at a time when claim forms were mailed to claimants, completed by the claimants, and then returned by mail. With the advent of technology that allows people to gather and submit documentation quickly and easily, this level of assistance is generally no longer necessary or appropriate. These provisions allowed leniency for claimants by effectively backdating their entitlement to payment to the date they initially contacted the Department of Human Services and indicated their intention to claim.

Substance Misuse Measures (Schedules 12, 13 and 14)

The Bill contained three measures to help ensure job seekers address substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from meeting their mutual obligation requirements, or getting work. These measures are designed to better encourage and support job seekers to take reasonable steps to overcome those issues so they can find work. This includes changes which will ensure that job seekers with substance abuse issues remain actively engaged in appropriate activities, including treatment, to address their barriers to work, rather than being exempt from all mutual obligation requirements for a period, as can currently occur.

The Bill will also allow the tightening of reasonable excuse rules to prevent job seekers from repeatedly using drug and alcohol dependency as an excuse for not meeting their requirements without being prepared to do anything about it. Instead, they will be encouraged to undertake treatment as part of their mutual obligation requirements. The Government has agreed to exclude participants in the Community Development Programme from this measure.

The dissenting report by the Australian Greens claims that the tightening of reasonable excuse does not recognise the complicated nature of drug and alcohol recovery. However, the measure does take this into account. Where an individual has used drug or alcohol dependency as a reasonable excuse, providers would work with existing referral services to help job seekers into treatment. If treatment is not available, or treatment professionals judge that treatment is not appropriate for the individual's circumstances, existing reasonable excuse provisions would continue without change.

A third measure in the Bill was to establish a two year trial of random drug testing for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other). Government amendments were passed in the Senate to remove this measure from the Bill. The Government remains committed to the drug testing trial and believes that randomised drug testing can be an effective way of identifying welfare recipients for whom mandated treatment could be successful. The Government will continue constructive discussions with the crossbench and seek to progress the drug testing trial through separate legislation.

The Australian Greens' dissenting report expresses concern that the new section 28C in Schedule 13—remove exemptions due to drug and alcohol use provides the Secretary of the Department of Jobs and Small Business "exceptionally broad power which goes far beyond what is necessary to achieve the stated purpose."

Broadly, section 28C would allow the Secretary to determine, by legislative instrument, categories of income support recipients who are 'declared program participants'. These recipients would be excluded from the application of the new job seeker compliance framework and the removal of exemptions for drug and alcohol misuse. It is the intention of section 28C to allow people who are participating in the Community Development Programme to not be subject to these measures.

Subsection 28C(2) also gives the Secretary the power to provide for the operation of social security law in relation to a person who becomes, or stops being a declared program participant. This is needed to enable arrangements to be made for people moving between the Community Development Programme and jobactive or Disability Employment Services, should they relocate.

Legislative instruments made under this section would face Parliamentary scrutiny through the disallowance process. When the instrument is tabled, any Senator or Member could move a disallowance motion and if that motion were not defeated or withdrawn within 15 sitting days the instrument would cease to operate.

In addition to this necessary flexibility, originally the Bill contained a power to use the legislative instrument to modify provisions in the social security law as they apply to declared program participants. This power was intended to modify particular social security provisions via legislative instrument in the event of unintended consequences relating to the exclusion of 'declared program participants'. The Government has amended the Bill to limit the powers of the Secretary in this regard by removing section 28C(3).

In the unlikely event that there are unintended consequences relating to 'declared program participants', these will be able to be addressed through legislative change with full parliamentary oversight, if required.

Targeted Compliance Framework (Schedule 15)

The Australian Greens dissenting report describes the targeted compliance framework as a 'punitive approach'. However, as well as being more effective, the new framework should actually be much fairer than the current compliance framework. Penalties will be directed to those with a history of persistent non-compliance and who, following multiple assessments, have been found able but unwilling to meet their requirements. Those who are found to be having genuine difficulties will not be subject to penalties but will have their requirements reviewed and, where needed, will receive additional assistance. In addition, as part of negotiations to secure passage of the Bill, the Government agreed to further strengthen protections for job seekers by increasing from five to six the number of failures without valid reason that a person could commit before they would generally receive a financial penalty. In contrast, under the current compliance framework, job seekers experience multiple financial penalties before they undergo any assessment to see if they are having difficulty meeting their requirements.

The new targeted job seeker compliance framework will not affect the majority of job seekers who are genuine in their efforts to find work, but will be stringent on those who are not, with appropriate financial penalties for job seekers who persistently and deliberately do not meet their requirements.

In their dissenting Committee reports, both the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens have called for the continuation of waivers and provider discretion. This would retain the most ineffective features of the current compliance framework, which allow deliberately non-compliant job seekers to avoid consequences for their actions.

Waivers under the current framework have resulted in only 7 per cent of applied penalties for job seekers who repeatedly fail to meet their requirements or refuse suitable work being served. That means there is no real consequence for job seekers in 93 per cent of cases (based on 2015-16 data).

Provider discretion allows providers to effectively ignore non-compliance, even where the job seeker has no reasonable excuse. This results in inconsistent and unfair application of penalties. The National Social Security Rights Network acknowledged this in its evidence at the Senate Committee hearing, stating that the new framework "deals with a range of problems in the existing system. They include an arbitrary levelling of penalties depending on a provider discretion".

Under the new compliance framework, providers will still exercise discretion as to whether or not they find the excuse offered by the job seeker to be acceptable, in which case no financial penalty or demerit will be applied—the appointment will just be re-booked as currently occurs. However, they will be unable to ignore blatant non-compliance with no excuse.

The Department of Human Services will also retain the discretion they currently have in relation to all decisions about applying financial penalties.

The Australian Labor Party's dissenting report also cites evidence from ACOSS that sanctions in the United Kingdom have driven people away from support. There are a number of key differences in the United Kingdom penalty arrangements which mean that evidence from the United Kingdom is not applicable in an Australian context. Under the targeted compliance framework there will be multiple assessments of a person's ability before they face lasting financial penalties, with the maximum penalty being four weeks' loss of payment, applicable only for an eighth failure without reasonable excuse or outright refusal of an actual job. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, a Universal Credit recipient may lose payment for of up to three months for a first offense without additional assessment, depending on the type of failure.

3. In their dissenting report the Australian Greens recommended that there be an independent public review into the compliance framework for people who are unemployed before any reform to the existing framework.

Government Response: Noted.

A further review prior to the implementation of the targeted compliance framework is unnecessary. The new framework was developed in full awareness of the views of all of those with an interest in this matter, including welfare sector organisations, employment services providers and job seekers. It was also based on detailed analysis of the administrative data, drawing on expertise from those areas of the three relevant Government departments that have day to day involvement with the job seeker compliance framework.

Further, a core role of the public service is the continued evaluation of the programs and policies for which they are responsible for implementing, as well as staying informed about various stakeholder views.

However, the Government recognises that formal review of the compliance framework is necessary to ensure that arrangements achieve the policy intent. For this reason, the Government has already committed to review of the targeted compliance framework 18 months after commencement.

This review would of course look at the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended adverse effects, taking into account the views of relevant experts and stakeholder groups.

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Interim Report:

Effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised

June 2018

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends the extension of this inquiry into the effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised.

Noted

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that in the current aged care oversight reforms being undertaken, all dementia-related and other mental health services being delivered in an aged care context must be correctly classified as health services not aged care services, and must therefore be regulated by the appropriate health quality standards and accreditation processes.

Not supported

The Australian Government does not support this recommendation but recognises and supports good clinical governance within aged care services to support access to high quality clinical care.

The Department is developing a Single Aged Care Quality Framework, which includes the development of a single set of contemporary aged care quality standards expected to be implemented from 1 July 2018 and assessed against from 1 July 2019. The new draft standards focus on quality outcomes for all consumers, including those with diagnosed mental health conditions and dementia, and require organisations to demonstrate that clinical care is best practice, safe and effective, and tailored to the consumer's needs, goals and preferences to optimise their health and wellbeing. This includes timely referrals to other organisations and health professionals where necessary. The draft standards also address recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, including requirements for providers to have systems in place for minimising the use of restraint (including physical and chemical) and identifying and responding to abuse and neglect of consumers. When clinical care is delivered, providers will also be required to establish and maintain an effective clinical governance framework, which includes open disclosure processes, as an integral part of their organisation's governance. The new standards have been designed to be consistent, where possible, with standards in other sectors that intersect with aged care, such as health care. The Australian Aged Care Quality Agency is working to produce guidance material to support the implementation of the draft standards and to assist organisations to comply with them.

On 18 April 2018 in response to the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson Review, the Government announced the establishment of a new independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to oversee the approval, accreditation, assessment, monitoring, complaints handling and compliance of Commonwealth subsidised aged care providers.

Starting from 1 January 2019, the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Quality Agency), the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner (Complaints Commissioner) and the regulatory functions of the Department of Health will transition to the new Commission. A new Chief Clinical Advisor will provide advice to the Commission, particularly on complex clinical matters.

Prior to the transition to the new Commission, the Quality Agency, the Complaints Commissioner and the Department of Health will continue to strengthen their intelligence sharing and data analysis to target compliance activity to those providers or services with the highest risk of non-compliance. The Quality Agency has also strengthened training for its surveyors around understanding risk.

The Government has also announced initiatives to strengthen risk profiling of aged care providers to improve the identification of risks to people in aged care; and provide more information to give greater transparency about the quality of care being provided to ensure consumers are able to make informed choices about their care. These reforms build on the Government's recent introduction of unannounced re-accreditation audits across residential aged care facilities.

People with dementia account for 52 per cent of all residents in residential aged care facilitiesa1a and most of these people are cared for successfully under current aged care arrangements. There is a risk that this recommendation, if implemented, could create a disincentive for aged care providers to accept people with dementia and increase regulatory burden.

The Australian Government is however investing in a range of evidence-based, dementia-specific sector supports and resources to further assist providers and their workforce to deliver quality of care. This includes establishing Specialist Dementia Care Units (SDCUs) to complement the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Service and the Severe Behaviour Response Teams.

SDCUs will be community based residential aged care services. They will deliver a psychosocial model of care largely delivered by trained and experienced care workers focused on behaviour management and avoidance of behaviour triggers. The model of care will include regular comprehensive assessment and review of clients by visiting medical specialists, for example geriatricians and psychogeriatricians who meet the relevant medical standards.

The SDCUs will provide care predominantly for people with very severe behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (tier 6 of the Brodaty Triangle) who are unable to be effectively cared for by mainstream aged care services but who do not require care more appropriately delivered in acute or other health settings. The objective is for people to have their behavioural and psychological symptoms stabilised within the SDCU and be supported to transition back to a less intensive care setting, most likely a residential aged care service.

The Australian Government also supports better links to broader mental and cognitive impairment service providers and through the 2018-19 More Choices for a Longer Life Budget package has invested $82.5 million over 4 years. This will improve access to mental health treatment services for people with a diagnosed mental health condition living in a residential aged care facility.

Primary Health Networks will now commission a range of services to best match the needs of individuals living in residential care through a person centred stepped care approach. Services will be made available from early 2019. Commissioned mental health services are required to meet the National Standards of Mental Health Services 2010.

1 The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling NATSEM (2016) Economic cost of dementia in Australia 2016-2056

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: Future of Australia’s aged care sector workforce

June 2018

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (the committee) into the future of Australia’s aged care sector workforce.

The Government thanks the committee for its work, and notes the wide range of matters covered in submissions and evidence from individuals and organisations with an interest in the role of the workforce in delivering high quality services and care for senior people in Australia.

Australian Government funding for aged care services

The Australian Government is the principal funder of aged care, providing estimated funding of $17.1 billion in 2016–17 to support aged care consumers and the sector. Government spending on aged care will continue to grow over future years and is expected to reach over $22.3 billion by 2020–21. The delivery of services to senior people under these arrangements depends upon the workforces of funded providers.

Continuing reform and a responsive workforce

As noted by the committee, the aged care sector is in the midst of a continuing transition process which started in 2013.a1a Fundamentally, this is about moving towards a consumer-centred demand-driven system. Providers, their workforces, consumers and informal carers are being supported by the Australian Government in a variety of ways to respond to these reforms.

The Government and providers have a shared interest in an aged care system that is sustainable and gives consumers choice and control over their care. The workforce is a key enabler in ensuring these outcomes.

Aged care workforce strategy taskforce

The Committee’s report acknowledges the Australian Government’s commitment to establish a taskforce to develop an aged care workforce strategy. 12 of the Committee’s 19 recommendations raise considerations relating to the work of the taskforce and development of an aged care workforce strategy.

The taskforce has been established and commenced its work. On 14 September 2017, the Minister for Aged Care announced the appointment of the taskforce chair, Professor John Pollaers. Taskforce membership and Terms of Reference were announced on 1 November 2017, with the first meeting held on 30 November 2017.

The taskforce will examine a range of issues to boost workforce supply, address demand issues and improve productivity of the aged care workforce, and is due to report to the Minister for Aged Care by 30 June 2018.The taskforce is a significant opportunity for the sector to develop a considered view of what needs to be done to achieve a skilled and sustainable workforce that supports safe, quality aged care for senior people. The taskforce is engaging and consulting with interested stakeholders through mechanisms including technical advisory groups, roundtables, workshops, workforce summits, public submissions processes, aged care community consultations, and specialist advisers.

On 14 March 2018 the Australian Government and the Australian Industry and Skills Committee (AISC) announced the establishment of a specific-purpose Aged Care Industry Reference Committee (IRC) to focus on the reforms arising from the work of the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce. The Aged Care IRC will be responsible for:

Aged care and disability workforces

The Government has also committed funding of $33 million over three years, from 2017-18, to help existing service providers in the disability and aged care sectors grow their workforce, particularly in regional, rural and outer suburban communities. This package will help employers increase the supply of care workers in the right geographical areas to meet the needs of both National Disability Insurance Scheme participants and the aged care sector.

Outcomes of two independent reviews with workforce components

The outcomes of two independent reviews have become available since the committee’s 20 June 2017 report. The findings will inform the Australian Government and contribute to the taskforce’s consideration of workforce issues.

The Aged Care Legislated Review report, tabled in Parliament on 14 September 2017, covered a range of workforce matters.

The report of the Review of the National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, released by the Minister for Aged Care on 25 October 2017, covers improvements to regulatory activities applying to quality of care in residential aged care facilities.

Action on workforce matters involves a number of Commonwealth bodies

The involvement of a number of government agencies with policies, activities and programs relevant to the aged care workforce featured in the Commonwealth’s information and evidence to the Committee.a2a

The Department of Health led the coordination of this response to the Inquiry that includes information from the Department of Education and Training.

The Government has considered the 19 recommendations made in the committee’s report and responses follow on each recommendation.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy taskforce be composed of representatives of service providers, workforce groups, including nurses, care workers/personal care attendants, medical and allied health professionals, and others, and representatives of consumers and volunteers. Representatives of workers, care providers and consumers from regional and remote areas should also be included.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the engagement of a broad range of stakeholders, including those identified by the committee, in the development of an aged care workforce strategy.

The taskforce will access required expertise and ensure effective engagement with the significant number and variety of interests in the development and implementation of a strategy.

The Department of Health is responsible for supporting the taskforce to access advice and guidance on a number of specific areas or issues, including such aspects as:

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the government, as a key stakeholder in aged care in terms of regulation, policy, intersections with other sectors and the coordination of government involvement, and as the key source of funding and revenue for the aged care sector, must be an active participant of the taskforce and must take ownership of those aspects of the workforce strategy that will require government intervention and / or oversight.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the recommendation, noting that outcomes or priorities for action are likely to be for the medium to long-term.

The Government will take an active part in the work of the taskforce, principally through the Department of Health, which includes:

Aged care reform is a continuing process, affecting consumers, informal carers, providers and their workforces, with the current reform program starting in 2013 and expected to cover a 10 year period. This means any workforce matters arising for consideration by the Government would need to be dealt with in the context of broader ageing and aged care policy development.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy include a review of existing programs and resources available for workforce development and support and ensure consideration of the NDIS Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy to identify overlapping issues and competitive pressures between the sectors and how they may be addressed.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the recommendation.

Existing programs and resources

The Australian Government’s submission (number 293) to the inquiry summarised the programs and resources available across government to aged care providers for workforce development and support, including coverage of such aspects as dementia, palliative care, workforce data and supports for providers in rural, remote and very remote locations. This information can be drawn on and considered by the taskforce as part of its work in developing a workforce strategy.

Consideration of the NDIS Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy

The Australian Government agrees the NDIS Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy should be considered in the context of developing the aged care workforce strategy.

The Department of Health and the Department of Social Services are committed to working in a complementary and coordinated way to employ cross-sectoral approaches to growing the disability and aged care workforce.

A practical and immediate reflection of this is in the Boosting the Local Care Workforce 2017-18 Budget measure. The Specialist Coordinator element of the measure will engage a group of up to 10 nationally focussed Specialist Coordinators to assess and respond to changes in the disability and aged care sectors. They will work with key stakeholders to identify and analyse risks, including observing consumer demand versus provider supply and identifying gaps in the market.

The Specialist Coordinators will address ten focus areas, including supporting participants with high support needs; allied health providers in the NDIS and aged care, specialist disability accommodation providers; supporting market development in remote areas across aged care and NDIS; and encouraging more Indigenous owned organisations to register as NDIS providers or work in the aged care sector.

The recommendations they make to Government will help to address identified market issues, and provide an input to the development of an aged care workforce strategy.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that, as part of the aged care workforce strategy, the aged care workforce strategy taskforce be required to include:

development of an agreed industry-wide career structures across the full range of aged care occupations;

clear steps to address pay differentials between the aged care and other comparable sectors including the disability and acute health care sectors;

mechanisms to rapidly address staff shortages and other factors impacting on the workloads and health and safety of aged care sector workers, with particular reference to the needs of regional and remote workers including provision of appropriate accommodation; and

development of a coordinated outreach campaign to coincide with developments introduced through the workforce strategy to promote the benefits of working in the aged care sector.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation.

The Government would expect the aged care workforce taskforce to consider the range of matters noted in the recommendation.

The Government notes, however, it would not be appropriate for the taskforce to deal with workplace relations matters for which individual employers are responsible for, or deal with matters that are subject to the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals.

Higher education

The Turnbull Government’s changes to higher education are focused on improving the student experience and better preparing students for the workforce – including greater transparency around admissions and student outcomes, and holding universities to account in responding to student and labour market needs.

Staff shortages in rural and remote workforces

The Australian Government funds a Remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Service Development Assistance Panel to assist aged care service providers to address issues of staff shortages and factors impacting workloads by undertaking reviews and providing recommendations on organisational and staffing structures and gaps in the organisations work practices.

Project requirements have been broadened to assist organisations to develop and implement operational strategies which will address staff shortages and other factors impacting on workloads and the health and safety of aged care workers.

Funding is also available through the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program to support the engagement and retention of aged care staff in Indigenous communities. Grants are allocated to provide secure staff accommodation which is essential to the delivery of aged care services.

Skills development – access to the Skilling Australians Fund

The Australian Government-funded Skilling Australians Fund, prioritised towards apprenticeships and traineeships, includes occupations in high demand and growth industries, as well as rural and regional Australia. The Skilling Australians Fund underpins a new partnership with the states and territories. From 2017–18 to 2020–21, an estimated $1.5 billion will be available through the Skilling Australians Fund. Payments from the Skilling Australians Fund will support agreed state and territory government projects for skills, aligned with priorities outlined in the new partnership agreement.

Projects supporting apprenticeships, traineeships, pre-apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships in the aged care sector, which meet the priorities and requirements of the Skilling Australians Fund, will be eligible.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy taskforce include as part of the workforce strategy a review of available workforce and related data and development of national data standards in a consultative process with aged care sector, and broader health sector and other relevant, stakeholders. Any nationally agreed data standards should enable comparison across and between related sectors where possible.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation.

The Commonwealth publishes a range of specific data about Australia’s workforce participation trends and on the health, care and social assistance workforces.

Taken together, these data can be drawn on and analysed to inform business decisions by both established and prospective providers about their service strategies, and the capabilities and capacity needed to align with those strategies.

It is recognised that there is no one single set standards to the collection of these data and as a result existing data sources may not be well aligned or comparable.

In developing the strategy the taskforce will need access to expert advice on available workforce data, including the Department of Health’s National Health Workforce Dataset and Australian Bureau of Statistics’ industry and occupation collections.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy include consideration of the role of informal carers and volunteers in the aged care sector, with particular focus on the impacts of both the introduction of consumer directed care and the projected ageing and reduction in these groups.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the recommendation, noting there are different considerations affecting volunteers, who can be part of the workforce, and informal carers.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the national aged care workforce strategy includes consideration of the role of medical and allied health professionals in aged care and addresses care and skill shortages through better use of available medical and allied health resources.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the recommendation, and expects the taskforce to consider the role of the above mentioned professions in the development of the strategy.

A mechanism to inform the taskforce in relation to medical specialist can be through the National Medical Training Advisory Network (NMTAN), which is an expert advisory group, supported by the Department of Health. The NMTAN has published the ‘Australia’s Future Health Workforce – Doctors’ report presenting long-term, national workforce projections for doctors to 2030. The NMTAN is currently undertaking supply and demand modelling of medical specialities. The information in the reports can be used to inform strategy development.a3a

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the government examine the introduction of a minimum nursing requirement for aged care facilities in recognition that an increasing majority of people entering residential aged care have complex and greater needs now than the proportions entering aged care in the past, and that this trend will continue.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation. The Government expects the development of a workforce strategy would consider the composition of the workforce in light of the changing needs of older people.

Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy include consideration of and planning for a minimum nursing requirement for aged care services.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation. The Government expects the development of a workforce strategy would consider nurses amongst the health professionals and other occupations engaged or represented in providing aged care services.

Consideration of this recommendation is linked with Recommendation 8.

Recommendation 10

The committee recommends that the government consider, as part of the implementation of consumer directed care, requiring aged care service providers to publish and update their staff to client ratios in order to facilitate informed decision making by aged care consumers.

Australian Government response

The Government notes the recommendation proposing residential aged care service providers publish and update their staff to client ratios.

There is already the opportunity for providers to include information outlining how they manage staffing at their facility in the aged care homes service finder tool on the My Aged Care website, in order to market this aspect of their offer to consumers.

The Government will consider additional approaches to achieve the intentions of this recommendation, which empower consumers with other forms of guidance and information on how to evaluate staffing levels and skills mix when considering an aged care home. For example, this may include questions they can ask providers about how staffing is managed in their service.

Through the Department of Health, the Government will continue to monitor the implementation of consumer directed care in home care and related reforms.a4a

See also: response to Recommendation 12.

Recommendation 11

The committee recommends that the government take immediate action to review opportunities for eligible service providers operating in remote and very remote locations to access block funding, whether through the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program or through other programs. The committee further recommends that consideration be given to amending the 52 day limitation on 'social leave' for aged care residents living in remote and very remote aged care facilities.

Australian Government response

Access to block funding in remote and very remote locations

The Australian Government supports reviewing opportunities for eligible service providers operating in remote and very remote locations to access block funding. In the 2018-19 Budget, the Australian Government made $105.7 million available to expand the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program progressively over 4 years. This will allow eligible service providers operating in remote and very remote locations to access block funding.

The Government recognises the challenges aged care service providers in rural and remote regions face. As a result the Government continues to respond to the needs of this group through a range of programs, funding supplements, education and training, and grants.

The findings of the Australian National Audit Office’s Report on Indigenous Aged Care were tabled in Parliament on 31 May 2017. Overall the report’s findings were positive, concluding Government-funded aged care services are largely delivered effectively to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program (NATSIFACP) has also been found to be effective in increasing access to culturally appropriate aged care services for elderly Indigenous Australians.

In 2017 the Government provided an opportunity for eligible residential aged care service providers that are not existing NATSIFACP providers to apply for funding under the NATSIFACP. This resulted in three additional North Queensland residential aged care services being funded under the program.

Social leave for aged care residents in remote and very remote facilities

The Australian Governments notes the part of the recommendation relating to consideration of amending the 52 day limitation on ‘social leave’. Any changes of this legislative provision would need to be considered by government in the context of wider aged care reform.

Recommendation 12

The committee recommends that the Department of Health review the implementation of consumer directed care to identify and address issues as they emerge. Specific attention should be paid to any impacts on remuneration, job security and working conditions of the aged care workforce, and impacts on service delivery in remote and very remote areas, and to service delivery targeting groups with special needs, as identified in the Section 11-3 of the Aged Care Act 1997.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation.

Through the Department of Health, the Government will continue to monitor the implementation of consumer directed care in home care and related reforms. This will include consideration of any additional steps that may be needed to support providers and their workforces in transitioning to and embedding the reforms, particularly in rural, remote and very remote locations.

The department uses a variety of methods to identify any emerging issues and monitor progress with implementation, such as feedback on where local providers are experiencing implementation challenges, including in rural, remote or very remote locations. The department also analyses the home care data to understand the issues that may have an impact on provider viability and service availability, particularly for rural and remote providers and consumers. Through these processes, the department may identify where additional support may be needed or where additional consumer supports may be required to assist consumers in exercising choice.

The Government notes that issues relating to remuneration, job security and working conditions of the aged care workforce are matters for providers as employers. The Aged Care Quality Standards applying to aged care providers funded by the Government include provision for regulatory compliance, including compliance with employment laws.a5a

See also: response to Recommendation 10.

Recommendation 13

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy ensure consideration of the service delivery context in which the workforce is expected to perform. The strategy should also include medium and long term planning for location- and culturally-specific skills, knowledge and experience required of the aged care workforce working with diverse, and dispersed, communities throughout Australia. This must specifically include addressing workforce issues specific to service delivery in remote and very remote locations.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the recommendation.

The factors noted in the recommendation relating to the delivery of aged care services are taken into consideration in policy settings and funding for the aged care system. They are pertinent considerations for workforce planning for the sector as a whole and by providers and individual organisations.

Increased Australian Government funding of the Viability Supplement for aged care services in rural and remote locations

In addition to specific measures to support aged care services in remote and very remote locations outlined under the response to Recommendation 11, the Government provides a Viability Supplement for residential care, a payment made under the Aged Care Act 1997 to assist aged care services in rural and remote areas with the extra cost of delivering services in those areas.

Reprioritising the Aged Care Workforce Supplement

Rural Workforce Agencies

The Australian Government funds Rural Workforce Agencies (RWAs) in each state and the Northern Territory to deliver the Rural Workforce Agency Program. Under this program, RWAs are funded around $86m (GST inclusive) over three years to deliver a range of activities aimed at improving health workforce access, quality and sustainability. RWAs collaborate with their state colleagues through jurisdictional Health Workforce Stakeholder Groups (Stakeholder Groups) with a focus on addressing health workforce shortages and maldistribution. Through these Stakeholder Groups, areas of need will be identified and prioritised for the provision of workforce support and assistance. RWAs also provide various levels of support to graduates (tailored to their individual needs) training in regional, rural and remote regions of Australia.

Aged Care Diversity Framework

On 6 December 2017 the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, the Hon Ken Wyatt MP, launched an Aged Care Diversity Framework (the Framework). The Framework addresses common barriers affecting access to aged care services for people with diverse characteristics and life experiences to drive cultural and systemic improvements to the aged care system.

Under the Framework, initial action plans will be developed to focus on the particular needs of four diverse groups.

It is anticipated the first three action plans will be developed by May 2018, with the homelessness action plan to be developed later in 2018. The Framework is envisaged to be a living document and action plans may be adjusted as the need arises over time.

Recommendation 14

The committee recommends that all recommendations of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia be implemented.

Australian Government response

The Australian Governments does not support the recommendation. The Government tabled its response to the report on 7 February 2018.a6a

See also: response to Recommendation 15.

Recommendation 15

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy taskforce work with Australian Skills Quality Authority to establish nationally consistent minimum standards for training and accreditation.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government supports the need for the aged care workforce strategy taskforceto work with key bodies involved in skills development and training under the reformed vocational education and training (VET) arrangements in place since January 2016. This includes the role of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and those Industry References Committees with a stake in VET packages of relevance to aged care sector skills and occupations.

The Government notes that ASQA, in accordance with the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and associated Standards, enforces the minimum standards set in the endorsed component of the relevant training package.

The establishment of training package components as requirements is a matter for the Australian Industry Skills Committee (AISC). This consists of industry leaders from across Australia, and was established in May 2015 by the Council of Australian Governments’ Industry and Skills Council. The AISC provides leadership and guidance to the VET system, bringing a strong industry-based perspective to enhance responsiveness, quality and relevance within the sector.

The AISC draws on advice from Industry Reference Committees (IRCs) which are made up of people with experience, skills and knowledge of their particular industry sector.

IRCs drive priorities for the review and development of training packages. The IRCs are supported by a Skills Service Organisation (SSO). The SSOs are funded by the Australian Government to serve as independent professional bodies which work with their industry or industries to develop training packages.

Recommendation 16

The committee recommends that the aged care workforce strategy taskforce work with the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council (ANMAC) to establish aged care as a core part of the nursing curriculum, establish dementia skills training, and develop greater collaboration between the sector and nursing colleges to increase student placements in aged care facilities.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation, and notes there is established machinery for considering the issues involved.

The Department of Health’s Nursing and Midwifery Education Advisory Network (NNMEAN) is an advisory body responsible for the provision of high level strategic advice to Health Ministers on an evidence based approach to planning, education, and employment of nurses and midwives in Australia. This covers all sectors of employment, including in aged care.

The NNMEAN is developing a range of strategies to inform policy initiatives and innovation to improve the sustainability of nursing in Australia. Membership includes ANMAC and representatives from the health and aged care sectors.a7a

Dementia skills training

The Department of Health’s submission to the committee outlined the programs and funding directed at dementia-related training and provider supports for aged care workers, including for health professionals working with older Australians in health and aged care settings. a8a

An example is the Dementia Training Program (DTP) which delivers accredited education, upskilling, and professional development for the workforce providing dementia care in the primary, acute and aged care sectors. This includes personal carers, nurses, medical specialists, GPs, pharmacists, allied health and other relevant health professionals aiming to improve the care and wellbeing of people living with dementia.

The DTP provider uses a network of teams to ensure training is available nationally, including in rural and remote areas, through face to face training, online learning, and a comprehensive range of free online resources and webinars.

Delivered by a consortium of five universities and Dementia Australia, the DTP has a strong Essential Collaborators Network with members from leading aged care, specialist dementia care, health education (including nursing) and research organisations. The DTP learning pathway is designed to enable clients to participate in training options which progress their knowledge from a foundation level to advanced dementia knowledge. The DTP supports choice in learning preferences, depths of engagement, training modality, and accreditation needs. It enables flexible training entry and exit points according to topic, time, and organisational factors.

Recommendation 17

The committee recommends that the government and the aged care workforce strategy taskforce develop a specific strategy and implementation plan to support regional and remote aged care workers and service providers to access and deliver aged care training, including addressing issues of:

the quality of training;

access to training;

on-site delivery of training;

upskilling service delivery organisations to deliver in-house training; and

additional associated costs relating to regional and remotely located staff.

This strategy should take account of consultation and analysis such as that undertaken through the Greater Northern Australia Regional Training Network (GNARTN).

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation, and would expect the taskforce to consider the various aspects identified.

The work undertaken by the Greater Northern Australia Regional Training Network, and other organisations which made submissions to the committee on regional and remote aged care workforce issues, can be drawn on to inform consideration of aged care training for regional and remotely located staff.

Recommendation 18

The committee recommends that the government work with the aged care industry to develop scholarships and other support mechanisms for health professionals, including nurses, doctors and allied health professionals, to undertake specific geriatric and dementia training. To succeed in attracting health professionals to regional and remote areas, scholarships or other mechanisms should make provision for flexible distance learning models, be available to aged care workers currently based in regional and remote areas, and include a requirement to practice in regional or remote locations on completion of the training.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation, and would expect the taskforce to consider the various aspects raised in the Recommendation.

Administered through the Department of Health, the Heath Workforce Scholarship Program (HWSP), established in June 2017, consolidates existing scholarship programs into a single program with a single administrator. The new program will deliver better outcomes and return on investment by targeting health outcomes of Australians through focusing support on up-skilling, capacity building, and retention activities for the existing health workforce with a commitment to rural service.

Through the HWSP, the Government is investing $11 million per year over three years from 2017-18 to increase access to health services in rural and remote areas experiencing skill shortages through the provision of scholarships and bursaries to increase the skills, capacity and/or scope of practice of health professionals (including doctors, nurses and the allied health professionals) committed to rural service.

Under the Regional and Rural Enterprise Scholarship Program, the Australian Government is providing a total of $24 million to support at least 1200 people from low socio-economic status backgrounds in regional and rural areas to access university study. The scholarships are eligible for courses in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as medical studies, nursing, pharmacy, dental studies and public health science.

The Government is also providing $15.2 million over four years to support the establishment and operation of regional study hubs across Australia, to improve access to higher education for regional and remote students who are studying via distance education at any Australian university.

Recommendation 19

The committee recommends that the government examine the implementation of consistent workforce and workplace regulation across all carer service sectors, including:

a national employment screening or worker registration scheme, and the full implementation of the National Code of Conduct for Health Care Workers;

nationally consistent accreditation standards;

continuing professional development requirement;

excluded worker scheme; and

workplace regulation of minimum duration for new worker training.

The regulation of the workforce must address:

historical issues impacting on employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and

ways to ensure the costs of this regulation are not passed on to workers.

Australian Government response

The Australian Government notes the recommendation.

The recommendation contains a number of elements, each of which would need to be considered in the context of experience with the full rollout of the NDIS (to be completed by 2019-20), the issues to be assessed by the sector-led taskforce in developing an aged care workforce strategy during 2017-18 and 2018-19, and wider aged care reform.

National Code of Conduct for Health Care Workers

Personal Care Workers, Assistants in Nursing and a number of allied health disciplines are not included in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS). In recognition of the need to provide for public safety for health care workers not regulated under NRAS, Health Ministers agreed in April 2015 to the establishment of the Code. This Code includes minimum standards expected of all health care workers, will include national prohibition orders, and includes workers in the aged care sector.

All state and territory governments are in various stages of passing relevant legislation for the Code in their jurisdiction, with four jurisdictions (New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and Victoria) having the Code in place for unregistered health practitioners at the time of this response.

1 The Aged Care Financing Authority’s fourth report 2015-16, pages 24-25 summarised the scope and progress of the projected 10-year reforms see: https://agedcare.health.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1426/f/documents/10_2016/acfa_annual_report_on_funding_and_financing_of_the_aged_care_industry_2016.pdf

2 See submission number 293 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Aged_Care_Workforce/Submissions

Additional information was also provided in March 2017: see http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/AgedCareWorkforce45/Additional_Documents

3 Australia’s Future Health Workforce – Doctors’ report is available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/australias-future-health-workforce-doctors

4 The Australian Government has made no decision on possible approaches to or timing of introducing consumer directed care into residential aged care.

5 See: standards for providers at: https://www.aacqa.gov.au/providers/accreditation-standards

6 Australian Government response to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report—Getting our money’s worth: the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia is available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/node/49981

7 Information about the work of NNMEAN is at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/national-nursing-midwifery-education-advisory-network

8 Submission number 293, pages 31-34.

Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee: Report on the Arrangements for the postal survey

The Australian Government thanks the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee for their work on the Report.

The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey (Marriage Survey) fulfilled the Government's election commitment to allow every eligible Australian to have their say on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Marriage Survey was a success. It was designed and conducted in fewer than 100 days and comprised a single question, asked of just over 16 million eligible Australians. Particular effort was made to ensure the survey was simple and could be completed by those travelling or living overseas, those in remote communities, people with a disability, and those who speak different languages.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that questions of human rights for minority groups should not be resolved by a public vote.

Response

The Government notes the recommendation. The Government commissioned the Marriage Survey to honour the commitment it made prior to the 2016 election to give the community a say on whether same-sex marriage should be legalised.

The Marriage Survey did not itself amend the law, rather it provided an undisputable public mandate for change that helped ensure the passage of legislation, after previous attempts to legislate change had failed. The exceptional level of public participation in the Marriage Survey showed both a strong public endorsement for the process of the survey itself as well as endorsement for social change. Other significant changes have been previously introduced through processes that included asking the views of the Australian public. This included the 1974 national anthem survey and the 1967 referendum that removed discriminatory references to Indigenous people in the constitution.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider how further funding and support could be offered to mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to help address the consequences of the postal survey.

Response

The Government supports and recognises the importance of ongoing funding for mental health treatment for all Australians. The Government also recognises the impact of mental health issues and suicide in the LGBTIQ community and funds a number of programs specific to their needs, including providing funding to the National LGBTI Health Alliance to deliver programs to support the ongoing mental health requirements of LGBTIQ Australians.

The Government also funds a number of other mental health services that provide a range of support, from telephone crisis support through to online peer forums, with many addressing LGBTIQ specific issues. These include QLife, Qheadspace, Lifeline, Kids Helpline, and ReachOut.

The 2017-18 Federal Budget provided $15 million in additional funding for mental health research, $9.1 million to improve access to psychological services through telehealth in regional, rural and remote Australia, and $11.1 million for suicide prevention programs. In January 2018, the Government also announced a further $110 million to extend and expand mental health programs for young Australians.

The Government recently launched Head to Health, a digital gateway which aims to support people to more easily access online and phone mental health and wellbeing advice provided by a range of trusted organisations. This provides a further avenue of support for vulnerable people, including those in the LGBTIQ community.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Australian Electoral Commission actively engage with remote communities and Indigenous peak bodies to increase the number of enrolled people in remote electorates and to increase the participation of enrolled people in local, state and federal elections.

Response

The Government supports this recommendation, noting that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is responsible for conducting federal elections, including maintaining the Commonwealth electoral roll. Increasing the participation of enrolled people in local and state elections is a matter for state and territory governments.

The Government recognises the importance of assisting disadvantaged communities in participating in the electoral process, and supports the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) which aims to help close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage in electoral participation: http://www.aec.gov.au/Indigenous/.

The AEC is currently reviewing the IEPP as part of its commitment to continuously educate, improve enrolments and increase participation in federal elections.

Government response:

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Advisory Report on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017

(Report tabled 25 June 2018)

______________

Government response:

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Advisory Report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017

(Report tabled 7 June 2018)

I table a document relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Future Submarine project.

In respect of the government response to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on arrangements for the postal survey, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I'm glad that we have finally got the government's report, some eight months after the postal survey was completed. The Finance and Public Administration References Committee made three recommendations on the arrangements for the postal survey. They were all pretty straightforward and all very strongly supported by the committee. I'll start with the one that the government has supported, recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that the Australian Electoral Commission actively engage with remote communities and Indigenous peak bodies to increase the number of enrolled people in remote electorates and to increase the participation of enrolled people in local, state and federal elections.

The government supports this recommendation, which is pleasing, because this is critical. We know that one of the by-products of the postal survey was that it actually did increase enrolments across the country. There were 100,000 new people enrolled through the process of the postal survey. But we know that, overall, these were overwhelmingly people in the cities rather than rural and remote people. We also know that participation in the postal survey was considerably lower in rural and remote communities, and particularly in Indigenous communities.

We are pleased to see the government's response to and support for that recommendation. However, it is disappointing to see the lack of support for the other two recommendations, in particular the first recommendation, the most important recommendation that we made. After having gone through the process of this postal survey and having seen the impact that it had on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer communities, the committee overwhelmingly recommended:

… that questions of human rights for minority groups should not be resolved by a public vote.

That was very clear. Although we've ended up with a good outcome—marriage equality in Australia; people being able to marry the person they love—the process that this government put our communities through should never be repeated again. There is ample evidence of the impact that the postal survey had on LGBTI communities. It was an unnecessary impact, because we did not need to go through this survey process. We did not need to have people's human rights put to a public vote. We should have had this parliament making the decision to legislate for marriage equality. But, no, we had huge impacts on the LGBTI community. There was an increase in the rate of vilification, particularly of transgender, lesbian and gay people. It is a massive amount of damage that was done, and this has been documented. Research has been undertaken looking at the impact of this survey on the LGBTI communities. It showed that significant damage was done to people's mental health and to their sense of belonging in the community and that there was an increase in the rate of harassment, vilification and prejudice against LGBTI people through the process of undertaking this survey.

We got through it. There were people who thought it wouldn't affect them very much. I know that there are some young people—in fact, I know one young person in particular who today is still feeling a bit shaken by the process he was put through, still feeling that he's having to process it. He's still seeking psychological support for having his whole identity, his sexuality, put under the spotlight of a public vote, of people making judgement on him as a young gay man. There was damage that was done. It is indisputable that damage was done.

That was why we would not recommend that this process be gone through again, that the human rights of minority groups should not be put to a public vote like this. So we are very disappointed that the government is only 'noting' the recommendation and then, in their response, they basically go on to say, 'Oh well, we ended up with a good answer.' In particular, they say that the exceptional level of public participation in the marriage survey showed a strong public endorsement for the process of the survey itself. Well, I beg to differ, because I think most people—the overwhelming majority of Australians who supported marriage equality before the postal survey—would have much preferred for the parliament to have done its job and to have legislated without putting the community through the process we were put through.

In particular, I had the opportunity of being one of the observers of the survey process and seeing the postal survey forms come in and the number of people who actually decided to vote informally or wrote comments on their postal survey papers. The overwhelming majority of those were actually saying: 'We should not be voting like this. We should not be putting the human rights of our fellow citizens to a public vote.' So, there was a lot of disquiet about it. Most people in Australia would have preferred us not to have gone through this process. Absolutely they wanted us to achieve marriage equality, but they would have much preferred for the parliament to have done its job rather than having the political fix. That's all this was. It was a political fix. It was so that the Liberal and National parties could get themselves out of a dilemma with the dinosaurs on their backbench who did not want marriage equality to go ahead. It was a political fix, and the LGBTI community was put through the ringer because of that political fix.

The final recommendation of our committee was that the Australian government consider how further funding and support could be offered to mental health and LGBTIQ organisations to help address the consequences of the postal survey. The government, in their response, say they support and recognise the importance of ongoing funding for mental health treatment for all Australians, which is commendable. However, it does not address the gap in funding that is still there. It is still very difficult for LGBTIQ people to access the mental health support that many of them need because of the prejudice that's still there in the community, and there is a considerable increase in funding that is still required, way above and beyond what is outlined in this government response.

So, I implore the government. I call on them to really take a clear-eyed look at the need for supporting LGBTI people so that they can have that support that they need. And it's going to require a lot more money than is currently outlined. This is the sort of thing we should be spending money on, instead of having $200 billion of tax cuts—$200 billion through the personal and corporate tax cuts this government is proposing and legislating for, when we've got huge gaps in services, particularly in this instance the mental health services for LGBTI people.

Look, I'm pleased that we had a response. I'm pleased we have now finally, with this response, put to bed the whole process of the postal survey. I implore us to, please, not go down this avenue again. On issues of human rights, we as a society, we as a parliament should be able to see our way clear to legislate together rather than put the human rights of people to a public vote in the way that was done through this postal survey.

I also would like to speak briefly on the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee inquiry into the arrangements for the postal survey that is before us and, indeed, the government's response. Although I'm a member of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I'm not a member of the references committee so I didn't participate in this particular inquiry, but this does bring to an end a very, very important chapter in the political history of our country generally. More specifically, it brings to an end, it underlines, the very, very extensive and exhausting debate we had in our country in regards to how to give equal recognition before the law to same-sex relationships. I'm glad we ended with the outcome we did. I'm glad that the sun has continued to come up. Indeed, it goes down, comes up, goes down, comes up in a way that it did before we had the marriage debate and before we had the marriage legislation.

But it would be remiss of me, as someone who has come to the Australian Senate with a fervent faith in our parliamentary democracy, not to end this discussion with a reiteration of my strong and public view that plebiscites and, in particular, postal surveys have been a corrosive feature on our democracy. As I've been travelling the country since the marriage legislation passed, people have said to me, 'Senator Smith, you must agree the postal survey was necessary because we got the right outcome?' No. Not at all. Because the outcome could easily have been 49 to 51. What would that have done to the political debate? What would that have done to the social fabric of our country?

In coming to a very strong and clear view about why I opposed the plebiscite, as it was originally proposed, and why I opposed the postal survey was because, when you look at the history of our country and the plebiscites that were held in 1916 and 1917 on the very sensitive issue of conscription, when you read the history books—none of us were there, none of us can re-tell the stories from personal experience—it divided the country, it divided towns and it divided families. By the grace of God, this country pulled through and we got a wonderful result with the postal survey. I absolutely agree with the comments that the success of the postal survey process was because people endorsed the principles of fairness that underlined that marriage debate. It was not an endorsement of the process, nor was it an endorsement of the huge sums of money that were expended.

This country has much to be proud of in regards to its parliamentary history, and at the centre of that is the work of this chamber, the Senate chamber, and the other chamber in the House of Representatives. Plebiscites and postal surveys seek to undermine the work we do individually and collectively as parliamentarians. They are most definitely corrosive and undermine trust in the body politic. When people suggest that advisory plebiscites or, indeed, postal surveys can be used in the future to debate and come to a resolution on other important national issues, I will continue to oppose them with as much vehemence as I did the plebiscite and the postal survey in this case. Anything that undermines parliamentary democracy undermines the credibility and contribution of each and every one of us as senators and each and every one of us as federal parliamentarians. It is easier to hold your parliamentarian to account for his or her actions every three or four years, or in the case of senators, six. It is harder—near impossible—to hold your neighbour accountable for how they might conduct themselves in a postal survey or plebiscite. When people seek to hold their neighbours and the members of their community accountable, and not their federal parliamentarians, that great peace and stability that we've come to take for granted as a group of people is easily undermined and diminished.

This brings to an end a very, very important and historical part of our political process. It did bring pain to many families and to many LGBTI people. People who say that it didn't are either deliberately misleading or so far removed from the debate that their commentary is of little or no value. I was disappointed that the government didn't do more during the postal survey to support LGBTI people and their friends and family. That's a bruise that I take, as an LGBTI member of this government, very seriously. I'm deeply saddened by it, but this brings to an end an important chapter. I'm very grateful that, in bringing this chapter to an end, we were able to legislate for same-sex marriage in our country. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I seek leave to reinstate the motion relating to the NDIS committee report tabled earlier by Senator McAllister.

Leave granted.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.

by leave—I move:

That Senator Whish-Wilson be discharged from and Senator Rhiannon be appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

Question agreed to.

These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COUNTER-TERRORISM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2018

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community. Law enforcement and security agencies must have access to the tools and capabilities they need to manage the ever-evolving terrorist threat.

To this end, and consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), this Bill extends the counter-terrorism powers and offences that are scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2018.

The control order regime, the preventative detention order regime, the declared areas offences, and the stop, search and seizure powers will continue for a further three years, until 7 September 2021.

Control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code are a key preventative tool to disrupt planning for terrorist acts. They allow for the overt, close monitoring of terrorist suspects who pose a risk to the community — either directly, or by facilitating others. Each of the controls in a control order must be reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist attack.

Preventative detention orders under Division 105 of the Criminal Code are also an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack. They allow a person to be detained without charge to prevent a terrorist act or to preserve evidence of such an act. The gravity of these powers means that they can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days.

The declared areas offences in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code form part of the Australian Government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters. They make it an offence to enter, or remain in, conflict zones in a foreign country in which terrorist organisations operate, and that is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There are only very limited reasons for entering such an area, other than to participate in the conflict or train with terrorist organisations. The offences recognise this by allowing for a small range of exceptions.

Finally, the stop, search and seizure powers in Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act give police officers appropriate powers to act in the event of, or in anticipation of, a terrorist act. These powers allow police to request a person to provide their name, address and certain other details, stop and detain a person to conduct a search for a terrorism related item, seize terrorism related items in Commonwealth places such as airports, and enter premises without a warrant to prevent a terrorist act or avert a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

These powers and offences have been used rarely since they were enacted. Six control orders have been made since 2005. However, there have been no preventative detention orders made, and no incidents demanding the use of the stop, search and seizure powers. As the PJCIS and INSLM both recognised, the sparing use of these powers is not an argument that they are irrelevant. Rather, it underscores that the AFP and others have been appropriately judicious in exercising these powers, and that the extreme circumstances for using a number of them have thankfully not yet arisen.

The Bill will also continue the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's questioning, and questioning and detention powers, in Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. These powers will be extended for a further 12 months until 7 September 2019.

This will enable the Government to consider the PJCIS's recommendations in relation to ASIO's powers. In the meantime, ASIO will continue to have access to these important tools in its efforts to gather critical intelligence to enhance Australia's counter-terrorism efforts.

Importantly, all the extended regimes will continue to be subject to extensive, and in some cases extended, safeguards and oversight.

Other technical changes

The Bill also makes a number of technical and procedural changes to implement other PJCIS and INSLM recommendations about control orders and declared areas.

The Bill will extend the minimum time period between an interim and a confirmation hearing for a control order from 72 hours to seven days. This will more realistically reflect the minimum time it takes for both parties to prepare for confirmation proceedings.

The Bill will also allow the person the subject of a control order or the AFP to apply to vary an interim control order, but only with the other party's consent. This is to provide flexibility for both parties to seek minor changes to the original terms of an interim order, but not the substantive terms of the order.

Further, the Bill will make clear that a court generally cannot order costs against the subject of control order proceedings. This reflects the AFP's long-standing practice, and recognises the significance of control order proceedings. However, the Bill will allow the AFP to seek costs where the subject of the proceedings has conducted their case unreasonably.

In relation to the declared area offence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be authorised to revoke a declaration of a declared area even where the legislative test for the declaration continues to be met. This will allow the Minister to revoke a declaration that may be no longer necessary or desirable, but where hostilities against a terrorist organisation may still be ongoing.

The Bill will also amend the list of legitimate purposes for entering a declared area so that it more clearly allows for the important role that the International Committee of the Red Cross performs in conflict situations.

Additional oversight

With such counter-terrorism powers and offences comes important responsibility. Therefore the Bill will require information on the exercise of these powers to be collected and introduce additional oversight measures.

The AFP will be required to notify the PJCIS in writing after the making of initial or continued preventative detention orders or a prohibited contact order. These measures provide the PJCIS with additional oversight of these orders.

The PJCIS will also have the power to report to Parliament on any declaration made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code at any time while the declaration is in effect, including during the disallowance period.

The Bill also implements PJCIS recommendations in relation to reporting on the use of stop, search and seizure powers in Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914. There are currently no such reporting obligations. The Bill will require the AFP to report as soon as practicable after the exercise of these powers and require the Minister to table an annual report on the exercise of the powers. These measures will thus provide enhanced transparency and oversight.

The important functions of the PJCIS will also be further strengthened through amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The PJCIS will continue to have a duty to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the control order, preventative detention order, declared areas offences, and stop, search and seizure powers. As with its recent statutory review, the PJCIS will be required to provide a further report on the extended legislative regimes by 7 January 2021.

The PJCIS will also be empowered to monitor and review the performance by the AFP of its functions under Division 3A of

Part IAA of the Crimes Act, and the exercise of the Minister for Home Affairs' power to declare prescribed security zones.

Minor machinery of government changes

Finally, the Bill makes technical amendments to the Criminal Code to reflect the new division of responsibilities between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs following the recent machinery of government arrangements.

Concluding remarks

This Bill ensures law enforcement and security agencies continue to have the capabilities to deal with the changing national security and threat environment while also protecting individual rights, including through further transparency and oversight measures.

The measures in this Bill implement the first part of the Government's response to the recommendations of the PJCIS and the INSLM's recent reviews. The second part of the Government's response to these reports—which concerns the creation of an extended supervision order scheme—will form part of a further Bill to be introduced later in 2018.

The PJCIS and INSLM have comprehensively examined the counter-terrorism provisions addressed in this Bill and have recommended, in light of the current threat environment, that they be continued. I acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and continuing work of the PJCIS and INSLM.

I also appreciate the ongoing partnership with states and territories in our joint effort to keep the Australian community safe.

To this end, this Government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring Australia's counter-terrorism and national security framework continues to be as robust and responsive as possible.

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2018 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2018

The Government is committed to supporting the Australian innovation ecosystem by providing a tax and regulatory environment that will help innovative Australian businesses raise capital, grow and succeed; and get more Australians into more and better paying jobs.

This Government, the Turnbull Government, is the government of innovation, jobs and business creation. We want to see new businesses and new enterprises get off the ground and get going.

As promised in the Budget, we are putting in place the world's most forward-leaning regulatory sandbox for FinTech development.

The Turnbull Government sees an active FinTech sector as a critical driver of more competition in financial services. We want to see competition, because it will increase the pressure on financial providers — traditional and emerging — to be more responsive to consumers' needs and deliver better outcomes for Australians.

I am a strong believer that choice empowers consumers to seek the financial services that best suit their needs without being tied to businesses that don't listen.

The enhanced regulatory sandbox will allow firms to test new products and services without needing to obtain a financial services licence or a credit licence from ASIC first. It will allow trial and error in a controlled environment, giving firms a chance to confirm their concept through initial testing with clients.

In simple terms, this will help Australians and Australian businesses to access cheaper financing and better financial products so they can grow and invest. The productivity benefits that will flow from this will be huge. Most investment equals more jobs and better wages.

Those in business know the importance of meeting customer needs. The regulatory sandbox will provide a means to test market demand. It will give firms looking to do things differently — to do things better for consumers — a real leg up and clear air to get going. It will reduce the time it takes to make their products and services available to consumers' and it will mean entrepreneurs are more informed in making decisions on their offering before applying for a licence.

We have worked hard to develop a legislative regulatory sandbox which builds on ASIC's licence exemption. But we have also been mindful of ensuring the firms in the regulatory sandbox maintain protections for retail consumers.

The Government's enhanced sandbox is about helping FinTech businesses overcome the initial regulatory burden and costs of licensing that may otherwise hinder innovative offerings.

Schedule 1 to this Bill takes the first step. It extends the regulation-making powers in the Corporations Act, establishing the foundation for the Government's new framework.

The regulations will then set out the detail regarding eligibility criteria, the types of products and services that can be tested, and conditions that will need to be met during testing.

Prescribing the detail in regulations will mean timely adjustments can be made in response to the evolving market. This will ensure the regulatory sandbox stays fit for purpose in this rapidly moving sector. This approach, which combines legislative authority and flexibility, sets Australia apart from its international peers.

The draft regulations were released for public consultation between late October and November. The Government will consider those responses as we work to finalise the design of the regulations.

Under the proposal released for consultation, businesses will be able to test a wider range of new and innovative FinTech products and services. This includes holistic financial advice, the issuing of consumer credit contracts and facilitating crowd-sourced funding.

An extended 24-month testing timeframe was proposed and will give more time for businesses to adjust their offering as they evaluate commercial interest and test the validity of their concepts.

As I've mentioned, while businesses will be able to operate without a licence, they will still be required to meet key consumer protection requirements including responsible lending obligations, best interests duty, and to have adequate compensation and dispute resolution arrangements.

I believe the regulatory sandbox will be a game changer. It will support businesses that could revolutionise the financial services sector — right across the spectrum of innovation, including payments, insurance, credit, data and analytics and personal finance management.

Consumers are already benefiting from the emergence of FinTech firms. These nimble and consumer focused firms are putting pressure on traditional financial services providers to be more responsive and to deliver better outcomes for Australians.

I would like to thank the FinTech industry for their work with the Government to develop the regulatory sandbox and other initiatives we have progressed in the last two years.

The regulatory sandbox will no doubt be a source of many breakthrough innovations in FinTech in the coming years.

Schedule 2 to this Bill makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership, Venture Capital Limited Partnership and Tax Incentives for Early Stage Investor regimes to clarify the income tax law and ensure that these provisions operate in accordance with their original policy intent.

The Tax Incentives for Early Stage Investors measure and the New Arrangements for Venture Capital Limited Partnerships measure were introduced as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Together, these measures are designed to promote an innovative, risk-taking and entrepreneurial culture by providing incentives for investors to invest in Australian innovative, high growth potential start-ups and venture capital.

The amendments being made by this Bill will ensure that investors in innovative Australian businesses continue to benefit from effective, generous Government support and have certainty as to how these programmes are intended to operate.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

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

I move:

That the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018:

(a) National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017; and

(b) Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017.

This motion seeks to refer two pieces of legislation, or provisions of two pieces of legislation—the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017—to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August this year. The reason we're doing this is that this chamber, the Senate, is being asked to consider these pieces of legislation in an unholy rush. I'm relying on statements made by government ministers to back that up, those statements being that government intends to have these bills passed through the parliament this week but without offering any reasonable or rational justification for that unholy rush.

What's happened here, as often happens with bills that relate to national security, is that the closed shop of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security has got together and closed the doors on every single crossbencher in this Senate—none of us have a place on that committee—and, behind those closed doors, a cosy deal has been stitched up between the Labor Party and the coalition that, once again, will erode fundamental rights and liberties in this country. It's worth the Australian people knowing that in the past two decades there have been more than 200 pieces of legislation passed through the Commonwealth or through state and territory parliaments in this country that erode fundamental rights, freedoms and liberties that we actually used to send Australians overseas and sacrifice their lives to defend. These rights, freedoms and liberties are now being eroded, and they're being eroded by the Labor Party and coalition parties in zombie lock step. I'm very disappointed—very disappointed—in Labor senators because of the way this debate looks like going, and I warn Labor senators in particular that the chilling consequences of these two bills will be on their heads.

I only have a few minutes, so I'm going to run quickly through some of the issues. Not-for-profits that are not charities will have to register arrangements with sister organisations, apparently even if they're not associated with a foreign government. This is not only a significant regulatory burden but also non-compliance will potentially attract sentences of imprisonment. The espionage and foreign influence bill directly impacts on matters of concern: for example, criminalising protests in this country. So someone who protests against a new coalmine, for example, runs the risk of having that behaviour criminalised, even if it's done in a peaceful and non-violent way. They risk up to 20 years imprisonment for taking that protest action, even if that action is about sending a message to the world that we should not be opening new coalmines in Australia. This, again, will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech in our country and potentially is in breach of the implied right of political constitution in the Australian Constitution. The espionage and foreign influence bill also could impact on reporting by journalists on misconduct of the Australian government.

Let's be clear about this: these pieces of legislation are a continuance of a sustained attack on civil society in Australia. They are a continuance of the ongoing erosion of fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms in this country, and it is a matter of deep shame that Australia remains the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of bill or charter of rights to protect those fundamental rights and freedoms.

And of course corporations are exempt from these bills. According to the coalition and Labor it's okay to attack non-government organisations whose mandates are defending the environment, whose mandates are defending human rights, whose mandates are holding the government to account. Apparently it's okay to attack those groups, but hands off the big corporates. Again, we can see what big political donations buy in this place. Hands off the corporates because, of course, they are exempt from these bills, as are religious institutions, as are, shamefully, politicians. To suggest that for-profit businesses—be they involved in telecommunications, mining or pokies—let alone churches or the Vatican, have less influence on Australian politics than non-government organisations is either naive or woefully negligent. I urge the Senate to do its job and refer these bills for an inquiry. (Time expired)

The opposition notes that these bills have already been the subject of extensive inquiry and report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and directs Senator McKim to those reports. Therefore, we oppose this reference.

The government also does not support the motion. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 have been the subject of extensive consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security since 8 December 2017. Any further delay would impact on Australia's national security and undermine our democratic process.

I understand the statements that other senators have made and I understand that they're not supporting this committee reference, so I'm not expecting my words to influence the outcome of the proposal by my colleague Senator McKim, which is, on the face of it, really quite simple: to have a more thorough examination of a very, very large number of amendments that are intended to be put and, potentially, passed by this chamber within the next couple of days on issues that go to some of the fundamental parts of our freedoms. I know the core of this legislation, the broader ideas of it, has gone before the joint security committee. If I'm correct, that's one that doesn't have crossbench representation.

I literally do have a grey beard so I probably am playing the 'old grey beard' role of the Senate here but this brings to me so many echoes of so many previous debates. I recall a number of times when former Senator Robert Ray, who was very ferocious in the way he put his arguments but very learned in his approach, would back up his position with facts rather than just hollow rhetoric. There was a view back then, and there still is today, that somehow security matters are the domain of just the two parties of the political establishment, and, for crossbenchers, it is, 'You can look at it all once we decide to give it to you in the chamber.' That would be okay if we then had adequate time to look at the detail of those matters. These are not minor matters—I won't repeat what my colleague Senator McKim just said about some of them. They are large in number. Perhaps this may give some senators some reason not to reconsider their position on this motion—I know that won't happen—but to at least consider ensuring that this debate, when it happens in this chamber, is not guillotined, that the amendments are properly examined and that, if necessary, it goes through to the next sitting in August. Unless a case is made for extreme urgency on the grounds of security, then it does merit proper scrutiny. Surely, if there's one thing that this chamber should still be able to hold its head up as being able to do properly, it is to properly scrutinise legislation.

The particular echo I had, in a strange way, folds back to the comments that Senator Dean Smith just made on a separate report. In the week that this chamber guillotined through the legislation to make same-sex marriage illegal, it also guillotined through two pieces of antiterrorism legislation, also under the guise that somehow this was super-urgent, super-necessary and just had to be pushed through. Right on the eve of the election, the chamber went right through to a Friday and guillotined it through. It was part of what made that particular week so distressing, because they were such serious matters. We all know how many more times we've had security legislation and antiterrorism legislation of all sorts continually put through this chamber since then. Each time it's justified as being necessary but each time it's also justified as being urgent.

Here we've got something with so much detail and on matters of such significance—areas where, frankly, it hasn't been proven that a lot of the past changes have been necessary. Surely, we can finally learn from those past mistakes and not just keep going over the same old problem. Maybe this will end up getting passed anyway by whatever combination of senators, whether it is both the traditional parties of the establishment or some mixture of the crossbench, but let's at least ensure that we have proper scrutiny.

The ideal way to do that on something of this level of detail and by something that enables broader scrutiny by a cross-section of the community—who are the people that will be most directly affected by this, not us in this chamber—is to send it to a Senate committee. But seeing that we're probably not doing that, I simply take the opportunity to urge the Senate to make sure that there is full scrutiny given to all these amendments; that, if necessary, it not be guillotined through this week and that it be given the level of sober and proper consideration that the Australian community deserves. (Time expired)

I indicate that I will support this motion to refer these two bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. They are very important bills. They have significant implications for our civil society and for our law—the way that we deal with spying and foreign interference. And they create new offences. Anything that creates new offences has to be taken exceptionally seriously.

Unlike Senator McKim, I have my reasons for this, which may be a little different, but there is a very legitimate complaint in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee does not allow other participating members—there is nobody from the Greens and nobody from the crossbench involved in it. Yes, we can read all the submissions—at least, the ones that are published; they're not all published—but we don't hear the evidence of the security agencies and we don't really know how it's all going to end up.

We've had this process reach its next stage this week, in which the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has introduced its recommendations and the government already has the amendments which are based on that report. We got exposed to them today, or yesterday, and we are being asked to vote on them this week. We are told that we've had ample opportunity to consider both the bills and the potential amendments. It's not true, and we haven't.

I have had the opportunity to consider these perhaps a little more than Senator McKim has because I've had briefings from the Attorney-General's Department and ASIO. I'm very grateful for those. I have to say that some of my concerns about the original bills, which I regarded as quite alarming in their content, have been allayed by the amendments based on the PJCIS recommendations. That's a good thing. But I've had, essentially, 24 hours to get my head around them.

Now, we've had this situation before—many times, as a matter of fact. I've been here for four years now, and we've had quite a raft of national security legislation and antiterrorism legislation. It's embraced or introduced things like control orders and preventive detention orders. Invariably, there has been some pretext that it be hurried up, that it was urgent. And then we would end up with control orders and preventive detention orders not being used. Nobody uses them. They're urgent, urgent, urgent—we have to get them into the books because there's some sort of national security crisis and then they don't get used.

What we do get, though, are free-speech restrictions. We saw, in the case of section 35P of the ASIO Act, unreasonable restraint on free speech. I railed against it at the time it went through. I knew it wasn't a good thing; I knew it was totally unnecessary, as a matter of fact. Nobody took any notice, of course, of just a crossbench senator. But then it went to Roger Giles QC, who said the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security legislation was inappropriate and had gone too far. So guess what? The government changed it. Then I drew attention to the fact that there was a similar provision in another act affecting the Australian Federal Police, and the former Attorney-General, George Brandis, to his credit, agreed to amend that without having a fight over it.

So fixing up the legislation later is one option. But another way to deal with it is to have a look at it in committee—where we can all participate, where we can all canvass our concerns—and deal with it in the normal process that we should be applying in this Senate. There is no case for urgency. We can conduct by-elections without this legislation. We have previously conducted many by-elections without this legislation and no-one can point to any adverse consequences of having done so. It is not necessary to rush it. We should take our time.

I rise to contribute to this debate in relation to the referral moved by my colleague Senator McKim. I would like to highlight the recklessness of the opposition and the government in refusing to allow this reference to go ahead. Only this afternoon we have had a package of bills presented to this place with 270 amendments that we are expected to vote upon as early as tomorrow. No-one in their right mind would think that 270 amendments whacked on the table only a couple of hours before we finish tonight, with the expectation that this bill will be brought on by the government tomorrow, would in any way be the appropriate avenue for debating something as important as foreign interference.

We know the reason why the government is rushing this piece of legislation. It is because, according to the Minister, Christian Porter, and members of Malcolm Turnbull's government, this all needs to be done and dusted prior to 28 July and the by-elections. But, of course, not everybody in the government thinks this. We know that Minister Pyne was dubious about whether it was urgent. Remember that? He either read the speaking notes and didn't agree with them or didn't read them at all. Either way, there is clear division, even within the senior cabinet, about whether the bills in this package of legislation are important and urgent enough to be rushed through and are up to scratch. And it clearly isn't up to scratch. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 270 amendments whacked on the table at a minute to midnight. So it is not as urgent, I would argue, as the government is proposing.

For the Labor Party to line up with the government to rush through such an extraordinary package of bills that cover such a breadth of Australian community, business and civil society groups is astounding. We know that there have been concerns from journalists, we know that there have been concerns from the media sector and we know that there have been concerns from academic institutions. There have been concerns from the artistic community in relation to the impact that these laws would have on their operations. They are worried that they are being caught up in this big broad net whether it was intended or not. So now we have 270 amendments to try and get through when we don't know what the implications will be. They require, in and of themselves, appropriate scrutiny and review. This is the job of the Senate. The job of the Senate is to review pieces of legislation put forward from the government, through the House and to this place. Our job is not to rubberstamp—no, no, no—our job is to review, to scrutinise, to approve, to change, to amend or, ultimately, to reject. That is our job.

Being told to do this now, at a minute to midnight, is just extraordinary. There are 270 amendments to this package of bills. It is not just one piece of legislation here; there are three bills. It undermines the role of the Senate. It undermines the role of the Senate to do its job and the responsibility that we all have as senators to ensure that pieces of legislation don't just pass this place, because the government wants a rubberstamp, because they're worried that they don't have anything else to campaign on in the lead-up to the 28 July by-elections.

Is it any surprise that the government's in trouble in Mayo, and so what do they do? They pull out the national security card. That's what's going on here. When this government thought that they may have been ahead in the Mayo by-election with their dud of a candidate, Georgina Downer, they thought, 'Let's lock it in with some antiforeigner legislation'. Wrong move, you're going to lose it anyway.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim, Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, be agreed to.

I rise to continue speaking to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. We've come a long way in our attitude towards higher education in this nation. In my days at school, there was a predominant focus on trades and jobs that relied on learning in the workplace. But, over decades, there has been a shift in our way of thinking and in the way in which we learn. As well, many jobs that existed are no longer, and many occupations now available weren't dreamed of then. Since the 1950s we have seen the number of students attaining university entrance in Australia raise from 30,600 to a whopping 1.3 million. Over the last 70 years, more than 28 million people have graduated from higher education in this country, and our universities have produced some of the greatest minds in the world. As well as this, our universities rate with the best in the world. Currently, we have a range of higher education providers across Australia, including 38 public universities and four others which are classified as private, plus around 125 other institutions providing a variety of higher education services.

Our nation's universities were originally established to provide qualifications in professions such as medicine and law, as well as traditional liberal arts learning. This is very different to our broad selection on offer today, including courses for careers that weren't even thought of in my day. Included in this is something called 'gender studies'. Why a university would offer a course on gender studies but not the study on the history of Western civilisation I can neither understand nor support. That aside, I'm pleased to say that higher education in this nation is no longer just for the well-off. It is now a choice within the reach of everyone who works to get there. This is because the government subsidises course fees in our 38 public universities to an average of around 58 per cent.

Students supplied with a Commonwealth-supported place can their borrow their contribution, which is half the real cost of their education, until they have a sufficient income to repay it. With generous subsidies and student loans available to students attending universities, financial status is no longer a barrier to post-secondary study. However, there still exist barriers according to postcode, with a greater discrepancy of rates for students from rural and regional areas—I'll return to this point soon. That said, this parliament has a duty to ensure the money we lend to students to ensure their financial security is recognised as a debt to the people of Australia, and to require that it is paid back as soon as possible. With more than 3.8 million students enrolled in 9,444 schools across Australia today, we have an obligation to them and to those who will be born tomorrow to ensure that the scheme is sustainable, that their access to higher education in the future is assured. Already we have areas of skills deficits, and professions which rely on overseas recruitment. If our economy is to grow, especially in regional areas, we need to think about how we can skill our young people to meet these needs.

What we do need to do is ensure that the training they get is in line with what Australia's industries need, and this is not necessarily all provided by universities. We need skilled tradesmen and others to be well skilled across a range of occupations and industries, for productive participation in our economy. A university qualification should not be the only career pathway provided to young people. They need to see that alternative pathways are just as worthwhile and will lead to a good life. But, to do this, there need to be quality training alternatives available to them.

Over the past decades, the TAFE system has been progressively downgraded by governments as more students have opted for a university education in preference to the occupational training that TAFE offered. We now have to move to reverse this through a stronger TAFE system, thereby giving a real choice to our young people in training and career aspirations.

The people of Australia are currently owed $42 billion for student loans. I'll repeat that: $42 billion for student loans. That's 2.6 million Australians with an outstanding student loan debt. The debt would have been $48 billion, but this government wrote off $6 billion of student loans in the last year. This was a lesson about what happens when there is insufficient accountability for public funds. Under the then VET loan scheme, too many young people were tricked by shoddy operators into signing up to dodgy courses and ended up with a debt they were unaware they had to repay. Thankfully, compliance measures now in place should protect against this in the future.

The Productivity Commission estimates that the value of outstanding student loans will quadruple to $200 billion by 2025. Let's face it, that figure will effectively negate any surplus this government thinks it will have in coming in years. From 30 June 2014 through until 30 June 2017, the level of debt not expected to be repaid rose from 17 per cent to 25 per cent. That equates to about $1 in every $6 lent, or now $1 in every $4 lent.

In the banking sector, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission mandates responsible lending. This is determined by two specific questions: (1) has the lender made reasonable inquiries about the borrower's financial situation and their requirements and objectives? And (2) has the lender taken reasonable steps to verify that the consumer's financial situation supports their capacity to repay? To relate this to the student loan scheme, the questions to be asked are: is there a reasonable expectation that the student will successfully complete the course; and will this lead to getting a job?

I'm not convinced that this happens, and in some cases young people with low entry scores are being enrolled. That is, they're being set up to fail. On top of this, there are those undertaking studies which have little likelihood of leading to a paid job. It is in everyone's interests that students are required to meet the entry levels set for their chosen course of study before they qualify for a loan. This, in turn, gives a reasonable expectation that they will successfully complete their studies and go on to get employment in their chosen field. We have an obligation, not only to the students who want to borrow money under this scheme but to the taxpayers who fund it. When one in four students will never pay back the money they borrow, I question whether we are doing the right thing by our young people. And, at the same time, we are setting this loan scheme up for failure. I won't sit back and see it fail.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting this Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. I support the changes to rein in student debt under the scheme, but place on notice that I will be looking at ways that it can be further reduced. The new thresholds are well supported by facts. Those facts say that graduates easily have the means to start repaying their loans with an income of $44,999 or above. Remember, the bill proposes that at this starting level the required payment is only one per cent of their taxable income. That is only about $8 a week at the lowest income level.

According to the 2015 report released by Graduate Careers Australia, which details median starting salaries in various categories of graduate jobs, all but two categories will earn above the $44,999 starting income that the bill proposes, and these are 2015 salary levels. These include dentistry, optometry, medicine, education, earth science, engineering, mathematics, social work, law, paramedical studies, computer science, accounting, agricultural science, biological sciences, economics and business, physical science, psychology, veterinary science, humanities, social sciences, and agriculture and building. The lowest-paid graduate job category, art and design, shows a starting salary of $40,000 per annum. Every single one of these degrees will set graduates up with the prospect of a full-time job and the capacity to repay, at the very least, one per cent of the money borrowed to obtain their education. Let's remember that the earning potential of first-year graduates will only grow over time.

I want to comment on the second reading amendment by Senator Hanson-Young. This amendment claims that the government is cutting $2.2 billion from universities when it is not a cut but a freeze. I believe the freeze is warranted given the growth in funding to universities that we have seen in recent years, ever since they were given open slather in enrolling students regardless of their academic achievement. Sarah Hanson-Young's amendment also says that the bill 'makes students pay back more of their debt sooner'. No, they're not paying back more of their debt; their paying back their debt sooner. I expect nothing less from the Greens than a play on words, and not being really up-front and honest with the people.

You've just lied!

So, yes, repayment of the student loan will start earlier, and so it should—as soon as income allows for it. I challenge anyone to say that $8 a week will be a hardship for someone who is on a taxable income of $45,000 a year. I'm sure they could go without a couple of coffees a week to pay back their obligation to the Australian taxpayer. I spoke earlier about salary levels for graduates in various professions—

Senator Hanson-Young, a point of order.

I have a point of order when it comes to misleading the Senate. Senator Hanson has said that she doesn't believe that anyone would struggle with having to pay an extra $8 a week—

That's a debating point, Senator Hanson-Young. Resume your seat.

This is the woman who thinks she's meant to look after the battlers. She's a joke.

Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. I also heard you make a very unparliamentary comment about Senator Hanson, and I invite you to withdraw. I heard you call Senator Hanson a liar. Now, please withdraw.

I'll withdraw 'liar', and I'll say that she misled the Senate.

Thank you.

I'm surprised: $8 a week is not much, considering that they've been given the taxpayer funding to further their education and to get better jobs and a better life. I think that's great for $8 a week. I don't think it's any imposition. As I said, they could go without a couple of coffees a week and pay back their obligation to the Australian taxpayer.

Have you actually ever struggled in your life?

Senator Hanson-Young actually knows what it's like to pay back the debt to the Australian taxpayer, when it took her I think a year to pay back to the government the $15,000 or $20,000 that she owed the taxpayer because she overspent on her travel. So, she should understand what it is to pay back the Australian taxpayer when you do the wrong thing.

I spoke earlier about salary levels for graduates in various professions. Entry to these occupations and professions is by virtue of taxpayer funding. The student loan scheme in its various forms has given them a wonderful opportunity to pursue their chosen career path, and their loan should be repaid as soon as it is affordable to do so.

I mentioned earlier my concerns about the lower level of access to higher education by students from rural and regional areas compared to those from major centres. I believe that Australia is well provided for by universities which have campuses in smaller centres and regional cities, and I applaud them for their initiatives geared to the needs of students from those areas. However, more can and should be done for our rural and regional areas. I visit areas of my state and talk to people about their needs. In too many areas, population levels are falling. When this happens, it becomes a domino effect. When schools close and medical services are cut back, it becomes harder and harder to attract and retain people. Communities need these essential services, and they need the skilled tradespeople and workers to keep them viable. I want to see higher education and vocational studies geared more closely to the needs of individual communities, and our regional universities are ideally placed to do this.

In conclusion, the student loan scheme needs to remain viable so that kids in Queensland going through primary school today knowing that it will be there in years to come and that they'll be able to attend regional campuses like Central Queensland University, the University of Southern Queensland, the University of the Sunshine Coast and James Cook University—all of which are excelling in meeting the needs of our regions. I take my hat off to them for their efforts. Along with our other universities and higher education providers in Queensland, our young people have a real choice in tertiary education. The next step is to extend this choice through greater access to apprenticeships and vocational education and training.

I am on record as supporting a substantial increase to the number of apprenticeships and urge the government to do more to provide better support to small and medium businesses, particularly in regional areas, to take on apprentices and train our future generation of tradesmen and tradeswomen. As I said before, let's move to build up TAFE so that our children will have real choice—choice will allow them to contribute to and be part of a strong future Australian society. This way we will provide real work choice to school leavers and ensure Australia's future economic growth.

I, along with my Greens colleagues, oppose the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. It should be self-evident from even the most cursory glance—and obviously any glance deeper than that—that this bill will impact most significantly on people on lower incomes. It will impact particularly the group of people on lower incomes who have undertaken higher education and training, which is exactly the sort of thing we encourage people to do. It particularly affects younger people, but it also affects older people who are trying to retrain, as they're continually told to do. The high priests of neoliberal fundamentalism that have been driving economic policy in this country since the 1980s demand exactly that of people.

We've got a rapidly changing economy and a rapidly changing workforce where different skills are needed, so you go out and retrain. But, if you go out and retrain, we'll charge you for it and then expect you to pay it back before you've even managed to earn enough to get yourself back on your feet. It's just putting one extra burden on top of another for people who are already amongst those who are struggling the most. That, unfortunately, is a description that applies so consistently to this government that you may as well just put it on play and repeat for pretty much every second piece of legislation—certainly anything that relates to economics in this place.

Last week, of course, we had massive tax cuts—big piles of money—made available to people on the highest incomes, and this week we have this government wanting to make more billions of dollars available to the biggest corporations. At the same time, the government want to push through legislation that will make people who are earning less than the median wage have to pay more if they've had the temerity to try and improve their education. Often it's a necessity to undertake education and training to try and get employment. We all hear it time and time again, the ridiculous mantra from the government benches. I heard it time and time again 10 years ago and 20 years ago: 'The best form of welfare is a job. What these people need to do is get a job.' But when they try to get training or to get an education to enable themselves to get a job, they get more debt. Now the government wants to force them to pay back that debt before these people are even earning enough money to get by as it is.

I am one of those—again befitting my literal greybeard role—from the era when university fees were not charged in the 1980s. It was in my final year at the University of Queensland that the Hawke Labor government brought in tertiary fees again. One of the great legacies of the Whitlam era, along with Medibank, was free tertiary education, which the Fraser government kept free. It was the Labor government, under the spell of the neoliberalism philosophy that is now so massively discredited, that introduced tertiary fees back in the late 1980s. It is a matter of folklore now that Mr Joe Hockey, who as Treasurer liked to talk about the 'end of the age of entitlement', was a student politician at that time in the 1980s. I remember how he protested against tertiary fees. So did I and many other people. Many people were spun the line, 'It's only a small amount,' and, 'You won't have to repay it until you're earning well above average wages, so it's completely fair and just.' Many people knew it was, quite rightly, a classic case of the thin edge of the wedge. And that is what we have seen ever since. The fees go up and up and up, the threshold at which you have to start repaying that debt gets lower and lower and lower. This is yet another stage in that process.

We all know that more and more people, particularly younger people, cannot access secure, permanent, full-time work. We all know how much more difficult that makes it for them, not just to get a loan to buy a house but also to get credit and loans to buy all sorts of things, to be able to get business loans and generate all those other different ways of trying to build a different way forward. When you've got that extra debt on top of it, it just makes it that much more difficult.

The Greens' policy is that we should be reversing this trend with regard to university fees, but the legislation before us is going even further in the wrong direction. With the tax cuts to big businesses and the massively wealthy people who run them, the current government is only going to increase the large wealth disparity that we see plaguing this country. This is another measure that will simply increase inequality. Surely all of us here now know that inequality is one of the major challenges, economic as well as social, facing this country.

An important factor of this legislation that needs to be noted is that it will impact more significantly on women. The lowering of this repayment threshold will be forcing 185,000 additional people to start paying back their fees earlier, when their income is below the median wage. Often, because they've undergone study, they've foregone the opportunity for a full-time income. It is almost impossible to have a full-time income and study full time. It is incredibly expensive to study with all of the extra costs associated with study apart from fees, so the vast majority of students, unless they happen to have wealthy families, are already in economic difficulties as part of going through that. That is fine if it provides the opportunity to come out the other side with greater opportunity to gain employment, but we all know, under the workplace laws that have been in place since Labor was last in government and the way they've now played out under the current coalition government, more and more graduates are finding it difficult to obtain jobs—certainly permanent, stable, full-time jobs. And even when they do find work, wages are stagnant.

The National Foundation for Australian Women found that the proposed changes will have disproportionately more negative impacts for young women attending university. They've stated that graduates caught between these policies will experience considerable financial stress. Graduates who are currently earning $51,000, more of whom are likely to be women, will have less disposable income than someone without a HECS debt earning $32,000. To reflect on the remarks of the previous speaker, who seemed to think that this should all be okay—'If people buy one or two fewer cups of coffee a week, they'll be fine to get by on $32,000 a year'—in any location where there are high housing costs, transport costs, caring costs, medical costs or the other challenges that so many people face, it is incredibly difficult. It will also negatively affect young mothers, in particular, who are already financially constrained by the costs of child care, and may be a further disincentive for them to enter the workforce.

For all the narrative that we hear from others in this place about the need to incentivise people to get a job, what we're actually doing is making it harder and harder for them, putting more and more disincentives in place, and continuing the regime of punishing the poor. As the second reading amendment from my colleague Senator Hanson-Young states, this is another indication of this government's war on young people and the poor. They are quite happy to hand out large amounts of money to their benefactors, to their corporate mates and to the wealthy while, at the same time, saying, 'We've got a budget crisis, so we've got to keep squeezing the poorest.' It's a stereotype, but it's so true. It is, of course, the easiest thing to do. It takes no courage to make changes that assist the wealthy and those that are already influential, but, as others have said prior to me, what does take courage is to make changes that support and assist those that are most in need. This parliament, time and time again, has its priorities very much the wrong way around, because these changes will indisputably make life more difficult for a specific group of low-income earners: people who have chosen or, in some cases, basically been forced, to undertake further or higher education or to upgrade, diversify or broaden their skills. We punish them further for trying to improve themselves.

We are in a situation where young people in hospitality and retail are having their penalty rates cut. They're having their incomes cut, yet some of those very same people, who are already struggling to get by, will now also be expected to be paying more on lower wages. These are young people who can't buy a house or who, if you're a student, certainly can't afford to rent a house unless they're doing it with a group of other people. Today I was talking to a young student named Gabby, who had just finished studying on the Sunshine Coast, about the immense financial challenge of getting through the studying process and coming out at the end of it with an enormous debt. Let's not forget the size of the debts we're talking about here. The previous speaker talked about it as though this is money that people owe the Australian taxpayer. Well, they do, unfortunately, but they shouldn't have to. People shouldn't come out of higher education or upgrading their skills with a massive debt. They certainly shouldn't have to repay that debt when their own income is below even the median full-time income. When they're low-income earners, we're expecting people to pay back a debt that they really shouldn't have incurred in the first place.

The whole argument—which has been shown over the years to be very flawed—that supposedly justified HECS was that people get an economic benefit out of being able to go to university. Certainly, some people very much do, but, if they get a higher economic benefit out of it, they should pay something back to the public through HECS fees. But we're now trying to force people to pay back it when they're not getting a higher economic benefit, when they're actually under the median wage and when they're a low-income earner. That is the bizarre logic that is trying to be applied here to justify squeezing more money out of people who are on low incomes.

I rise this evening to commemorate the life of a mother, a wife, a friend and a Liberal, Maureen Elizabeth Bennetts, who died aged 51 on 16 June this year—far, far too young. Maureen is the mother of Lyreda, Gene and Gil, and the wife of Richard Bennetts, who works in my office and has worked as an electoral officer in this building for some time. Maureen and her husband, Richard, had also been selectors for Eden-Monaro in the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party.

We commemorated Maureen's life in the Adaminaby Memorial Hall last Friday. Maureen was a Gilbert from the land around Adaminaby. The family still farms in the district, while the Bennetts have a house in the town and still own Creek House, the old family home.

Maureen left Adaminaby to go to school and university and made many lifelong friends there—especially at university—many of whom spoke in her memory on Friday. In particular, Anna, Mary and Michelle spoke fondly of school, university and about Maureen's travel in the UK as a young girl—our generation's rite of passage. Her good friend Matthew Mason-Cox MLC spoke of their long friendship from university onwards. Maureen's husband, Richard, and her son Gene spoke devotedly of their wife and mother, reflecting the fact that such all-encompassing sadness in mourning is the price we all pay for a loving relationship.

I met Maureen at the country shows we attended as Liberals in Eden-Monaro over the last five years. Maureen's dedication and highly principled approach to New South Wales' conservative politics was obvious to all during and after my preselection on the Senate ticket before the 2016 federal election. Maureen was also able to effectively reach across the entire New South Wales division. The words spoken to me by Senator Marise Payne, amongst others, reflect the extraordinarily high regard in which Maureen was held.

Maureen combined the best that country people bring to our community—worldly wise, knowledgeable, traditional values, passionate family orientation and never losing that earthiness that we associate with those who make a living from the land, the people of the Monaro. Rest in peace, Maureen.

I rise tonight to talk about residents of Kalgoorlie's experiences with the cashless welfare card. I visited Kalgoorlie over the weekend, specifically to hold a public meeting, to talk to people who are on the card and to hear from them firsthand of their experiences. In fact, I held a public meeting that the government didn't hold. I held a public meeting with the people who are affected by the card.

The government, during the debate on the cashless welfare card going into Kalgoorlie and extending the trials into Kununurra and Ceduna, said that they'd held lots of public consultations in Kalgoorlie. They talked about over 100 and at one stage saying there were 171, and there were other claims made as well. When I asked at the public meeting whether anybody had been to any of the consultations, one person said they had been invited to one through an organisation. It was not a public meeting, it was a consultation, and they were told what would happen when the card came in. They weren't asked for their opinion about the card; they weren't asked what their conditions were like when they were trying to exist on low-level payments and what they thought would happen when the card was brought in and their income was quarantined. It is a farce when the government claim that they have consulted in Kalgoorlie when the people who were on the card were not invited to a public meeting.

People spoke to me during the public meeting about how dehumanising the card was, how it has impacted on their mental health and how much stress they had suffered. In fact, while they described how stressful it was, you could actually hear in their voices, from the way they were talking, the stress that it had caused. This is affecting people on income support. Some of the most deeply concerned people who were affected were carers, who have been put on the card because they are caring for loved ones. They talked about their concerns about having to have two cards, about dealing with Indue and about having to get permission from Indue to pay bills.

When this was first proposed, I remember the proponents standing up and saying, 'This will just be like any other debit card.' Well, it is not. If you want to use PayPal, you can't. If you want to pay bills that are a bit out of the ordinary, you can't. If you want to buy medical equipment that you cannot get here in Australia, if you want to buy it from overseas, you have to go into the Indue office in Kalgoorlie and ask, and you will get permission. So much for, 'This will just be like any other card.' It is not. People talk about having to queue to get permission to use the card. People are being charged late fees because the bills that they have asked to be paid have not been paid. They are now getting very concerned about their credit rating, because that impacts on their credit rating. This is not normally how you would use a debit card or, in fact, a credit card.

Did you know that people in Kalgoorlie got the card before they got the letter explaining what the card was? The first they knew that they would be subject to income management, where 80 per cent of their payment would be quarantined—that's what it is; it's income management—was when they got the card in the mail. That is not good enough. That is outrageous. It adds to people's sense of frustration and alienation, and it is dehumanising.

People told me of going in to try and use the card and being told, 'That's one of them cards the druggies have.' People are very, very concerned about the stigma that is attached to the card, and that is what they are suffering from. A number of different people, in fact, told me of their concerns about being called 'druggies', because that's, apparently, 'the card that the druggies have'. This card is causing distress, and it is not going to help if people's mental health is affected and if people are not able to pay bills. It is making the lives of people who are already struggling to get by on income support worse. That is what I heard in Kalgoorlie. (Time expired)

I rise tonight to express my admiration and support for the thousands of Iranians who have taken to the streets over recent months to demand respect for their basic rights and their dignity as human beings. Along with Senator Williams and Senator Singh, who I understand will be making similar contributions tonight, and Senator Moore, I recently met with Iranian pro-democracy activists in Parliament House and I was very disturbed by what they had to say.

The situation in Iran today is one of sustained protests, strikes and rallies against the country's authoritarian and theocratic regime. The protests began on 28 December last year, when a small number of people in the northern city of Mashhad took to the streets to decry the dire economic circumstances that they are faced with. These protests quickly spread to over 140 towns and cities, with thousands of Iranians voicing their opposition to the oppressive, theocratic rule of the current regime.

Iran is no stranger to protest movements. As recently as 2009, the country was beset by widespread unrest as the Green Movement, which called for democratic reform, was violently suppressed by the Revolutionary Guard. So it comes as no surprise that the current round of protests has also been met by widespread arrests and violent crackdowns.

According to reports from inside Iran, at least 10,000 people have been arrested for protesting the regime. More than 50 have been killed in crackdowns, and, perhaps worst of all, there have been at least 17 people tortured to death while in custody. These are shameful acts from a barbaric regime. The fact it was expected only emphasises the tremendous bravery of the young Iranians, in particular, who are daring to oppose this violent regime.

I am sure that many Australians became aware of the protest when they saw a viral image of a young Iranian woman standing on a utility box, hair exposed, waving a hijab on a stick. This was a brave act of defiance against a law forcing women to cover their heads in public. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of between 10 days and two months or a fine of between 50 and 500,000 rial. This is a policy that the Iranian government's own polling shows is opposed by 49.8 per cent of the country.

The young woman in the photo was eventually revealed to be 31-year-old Vida Movahed. Although she was arrested the authorities could not stop her act of defiance becoming an instantly recognisable symbol for the protests, with countless Iranian women repeating it across the country. A single photograph can never capture the complexities of a country's political environment, but it is hard to think of a better symbol than the bravery of this young woman. That's because the women of Iran have suffered explicit legal discrimination since Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. Women are forced to gain the permission of their husbands to gain employment and they have fewer rights than men when it comes to inheritance, divorce and custody of their children. In many cases the testimony of a woman only counts for as much as half of that of a man for certain crimes, and in some a woman's testimony is not accepted at all. This institutionalised discrimination has led to cases where women have been executed even for murdering the men who raped them.

We certainly have disagreements in this place, but I know that none of my parliamentary colleagues would ever support the arbitrary arrest and violent suppression of people who are simply exercising their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. We enjoy these freedoms because we live in a country with long-established and respected institutions like parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Sadly, Iran does not have this same liberal democratic tradition, or, at least, not one with roots as deep as our own. However, this does not mean that the Iranian people have any less right to live in a country that respects their rights and their dignity as human beings. That's why I'm proud to show my solidarity with the people of Iran in their protests against their government. Like many, I hope for better days for the Iranian people, freed from this oppression.

Tonight, I rise to speak about the scourge of asbestos in this country. I want to start by going back and just reminding people that it was actually back on 31 December 2003, under then Minister Tony Abbott, that we introduced a total ban on the manufacture, use, reuse, import, transport, storage or sale of all forms of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials within Australia. A lot of people think that, having passed that law, that's the end of the issue and that asbestos should be of no further interest to lawmakers in this country.

Unfortunately, the report of the Senate Economics References Committee last year identified the fact that this issue is not going away. Materials continue to come into this country which are putting at risk the lives of Australians. Tonight, I wanted to remind the government that our report was handed down in November of last year. It is now seven months on and we have not yet seen a response from the government in relation to this very important report.

It's also important to note that the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency has been continuing to do its very important work in this area. I note that on 21 June this year they handed down a report in relation to the economic burden of asbestos related disease, and it makes pretty stark and disappointing reading. The study that they've done identified that for 2015 there were large health system and productivity costs associated with the disease. But let's put aside the human cost and the terrible health implications of asbestos related diseases. No-one would want to see even their worst enemy go through the symptoms of those diseases.

But, putting that aside, there is a huge economic cost associated with asbestos in this country, and it behoves the government to do something about this particular issue. In 2015 there were an estimated 4,152 deaths in Australia due to asbestos-related disease, and 10,444 prevalent cases of disease. This goes to things like mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and larynx cancer. As I said, there is an economic cost. It is estimated in the report prepared by the Centre for International Economics that the hospital and primary healthcare costs associated with treating asbestos-related diseases is $192 million for 2015. You can break that down into different areas but that is a huge cost to the economy. There are costs to the workforce and to the broader economy. Living with asbestos-related disease compromises an individual's ability to directly participate in the paid and unpaid workforce. These direct effects are estimated to be $321 million. You can look at the cost to individuals, in terms of the burden that they suffer living with asbestos-related disease, and they do this gruesome calculation of the sum of years lost due to disability and years of life lost due to death related to asbestos-related disease. So they have come up with a calculation of disability adjusted life years. At the moment, it is estimated to be 58,077 disability adjusted life years. There is a monetary cost, there's a cost to the economy but there's a terrible, terrible human cost. So we are calling on the government to act on this report, and I'm sure that there is a measure of bipartisan support for something to be done in this area. I commend Michael Borowick, the assistant secretary of the ACTU for his tireless advocacy in this area, and I commend to the government some of the recommendations that Senate Economics References Committee handed down in the nonconforming building products report, particularly in relation to our interim report. We talked about the ACCC doing something to look at compulsory recalls— (Time expired)

I rise to speak about the huge significance of the uprising in Iran as well, along with Senator Paterson, Senator Singh and probably Senator Moore as well, which began on 28 December 2017. Millions of ordinary Iranians bravely risked their lives to join mass public protests against the repressive regime that has held power in Iran for the past 39 years. People have taken to the streets in more than 140 cities across Iran. Demonstrators chanting slogans like, 'Death to the Islamic Republic' have shown this is an uprising against the regime itself. They're sick of their wealth being looted to fund proxy wars and terrorists throughout the Middle East. Massive strikes and worker protests, huge farmer protests and open rebellions by Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi minorities continue to this day.

Much of the Western media has either failed to report the uprising at all or initially reported that the mass demonstrations were simply based on Iran's dire economic situation. The Western media doesn't seem to comprehend why 80 million beleaguered Iranian citizens could possibly rise up and demand regime change. The current mass demonstrations have shaken the dictatorship despite the deadly crackdowns, the torture, the death of at least 17 arrested protesters and the detention of over 10,000 citizens. While the protest movement has used social media to mobilise, the regime has countered with cyberwarfare.

Leading members of the regime have admitted their fear and vulnerability to regime change and have acknowledged the role and the growing support for the main democratic opposition movement, the People's Mujahedin of Iran. The clerical regime appears now to be on its last legs, and its demise may be inevitable. The people of Iran are charting the next necessary steps to restore peace, democracy, human rights and women's rights in their own country—I think we'd all support peace, democracy, women's rights and human rights—while bringing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and terror to face justice. We should support them. It is time we woke up to the fact that, as long as the mullahs remain in power, there will be no possibility of peace. The mullahs will always be a major problem. They can never be part of the solution.

This Senate and the whole democratic world should express solidarity with the Iranian people and their resistance in their bid for democratic change. Now is the time for us to speak up. Australia should use its respected voice at the United Nations Human Rights Council and work with its allies at the UN and in other international forums to increase pressure on the Iranian regime and its leaders to release all political prisoners, abolish the oppression of women, guarantee freedom of speech and assembly and refer the government's abysmal human rights record to the UN Security Council.

This Saturday, the grand rally for Iranian democracy will take place in Paris. It will be attended by well over 100,000 people, including many hundreds of elected MPs and political dignitaries from Europe, North America and around the world. I wish them well. Our peace, our democracy and our freedom of speech are things that we probably take for granted in Australia. Come election time, probably all of us in this chamber are handing out 'how to votes'. When people walk up and say, 'Oh, I've got to vote again,' I say, 'Don't complain about it; many countries never get the opportunity.' Let's hope that they can get the opportunity for democratic change in Iran and rights are returned to women, who deserve exactly that—human rights. I wish them well in their protest and I hope there's a change very soon.

I rise to join with Senators Williams, Paterson and Moore to give my support to the grand rally for Iranian democracy, which will take place in Paris, France, this Saturday, and to stand in solidarity with tens of thousands of people, including politicians from all over the world, who will converge on Paris to unite in their resolve for a free and democratic Iran. This resistance comes on the back of decades of human rights violations. Since 1981 more than 120,000 civilians have been arrested, tortured and executed by the clerical regime, including the murder of thousands of political prisoners in 1988. The United Nations has passed resolutions condemning Iran's human rights abuses on some 64 occasions. The UN has also reported that Iran leads the world in executions per capita.

I want to highlight, in particular, the determination of Iranian women who have been arrested and imprisoned for their activism in support of basic human rights. For almost four decades, women of Iran have protested against laws making the wearing of the hijab compulsory, but in the last six months the world has witnessed an upsurge in these protests. Courageous women, known as the Girls of Revolution Street, in Tehran are removing their hijab in public and holding it up on a stick as a peace flag. Women across the country are wearing white hijabs or other white clothing on Wednesdays as part of the 'White Wednesday' campaign. Social surveys show that most of Iran's population oppose the mandatory wearing of the hijab for women. Yet such a simple action is one that takes incredible bravery in the country of Iran. International media has reported that in February alone police arrested 29 women in Tehran for participating in these protests. One woman, 31-year-old Vidal Movahed, was photographed protesting in December last year. The photo went viral. She was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison. These protests are a small thread in a tapestry of rising unrest across Iran against the breaches of human rights and lack of freedom for Iranian people that has gone on for far too long.

In the last six months there have been protests in 140 cities across the country, while, in response, some 8,000 people have been detained and more than 50 protesters have been killed on the streets or in custody. Just a week ago, prominent human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has defended some of the detained women, was arrested in her home and told she will be imprisoned for the next five years. Amnesty International has condemned her arrest as 'the latest example of the Iranian authorities' vindictive attempts to stop her from carrying out her important work as a lawyer'. Nasrin has now paid the price of losing her freedom for doing her job defending citizens' rights and protecting human rights. Yet it is not the first time Nasrin has been jailed for her activism. In 2010 she was imprisoned for three years for her own work that included representing political prisoners and young people who had been sentenced to death. Despite that, she has continued her courageous fight for justice and for human rights. At this time of such unrest in Iran I think it is important that the international community demands the immediate release of Nasrin.

I also wish to condemn the recent execution of Mohammad Salas, an elder of the Iranian dervish community. He was executed for political reasons. I urge the Iranian government to stop these executions and release all the political prisoners, of whom 30 per cent are women. I also urge them to abolish the oppression of women, including the compulsory wearing of the hijab. Iranian people are calling for greater democracy and for fundamental human rights to be respected. Australians should stand with them. We should use our voice at the table of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which we now sit on, and we should join with allies at the UN to do so. We in this parliament, in this Senate, are certainly sharing our voice, on both sides of politics, to show that we stand with the Iranian people for a free and democratic Iran when we stand for their fundamental human rights.

The Greens movement is founded on the belief that, when people come together, change is possible, and we live that belief in everything we do. From our time on the streets in the community, campaigning to end the needless cruelty that is live animal exports or the inhumane horror that is the treatment of refugees or indeed the flagrant neglect and betrayal of the next generation that is inaction on climate change, we are in active communities—organising, bringing people together. When there are opportunities to bring those issues to the front, to talk about them in a campaign and to give people the option to vote for them at the ballot box, we participate joyfully in election campaigns.

It just so happens that in my state of WA the people of the federal electorates of Perth and Fremantle will, on 28 July, be given such an opportunity to make their voices heard and to make a fundamental and critical choice. They will have the opportunity to vote for and to put their support behind candidates who represent a future for all of us, a politics that proudly defends and fights for those things that are necessary to create a good life for all of us. I'm so excited to be seeing what is happening on the ground in those two seats right now. Greens across those two electorates are campaigning in the community. Thousands of conversations are being had with local people about the issues that matter to them, proving that you do not have to take corporate money to run community campaigns.

We are honoured, as a movement, to be represented in both of these electorates by two incredible women, who I also am proud to call my personal friends, these being Caroline Perks and Dorinda Cox. Caroline is a climate change expert who has spent her entire career fighting for evidence based action to safeguard our future from dangerous climate change, working within the Public Service, in the federal department of climate change under the Rudd government, seeing firsthand at the coalface the promise of that period wasted as the Rudd government buckled to the pressure of the fossil fuel industries. And Dorinda is one of the most incredible people I have ever had the opportunity to work with—a passionate domestic violence campaigner, a small-business owner, a former police officer, and a proud Noongar woman who is ready, able and excited to bring the voices of her people to this place. Both of them represent an incredible opportunity to bring some urgently needed diversity to this chamber, to this political system. They represent an opportunity for the people of Perth and Fremantle to vote for representatives who will not simply talk about community values, will not simply agree that Perth and Fremantle want a more caring, compassionate society, but will vote for it here in Canberra.

In a few days' time—in fact, on Saturday afternoon—I'll be out doorknocking in Hilton with some our campaign team in Fremantle, talking to people about the things that matter to them, and I cannot wait. I cannot wait to be back in WA, on the ground, campaigning for a better society for all of us; proving what can be done when conviction and compassion drive your political belief.

Like a number of senators this evening, I'm putting a focus on the issue of human rights in Iran. I remember very clearly when I heard, as a young woman, about the emancipation of women in Iran. During the 1960s we heard about the White Revolution, where women across that country worked together to bring real change into the lives of women in their community: increasing women's access to education; women working in the professions; women being seen as active members, real members, of the community.

All of that changed with the collapse of the Shah government in 1979 and the introduction, under Ayatollah Khomeini, of a religious and political process that systematically focused on removing human rights for women. Central to this was the focus on what they called 'women needing to dress properly'. That meant women were forced to wear the veil. We have heard from other senators this evening about the impact of that and how, for almost 40 years, women, and the men who support them, have tried to reassert, as best they could, their own rights in their community.

More recently there has been a resurgence of direct action in the Iranian community, which has become known as the Girls of Revolution Street in Tehran. This particular movement has inspired women across the world with their bravery and courage, and also with their sense of drama. As we heard from other senators earlier this evening, 31-year-old Vida Movahed was arrested in December 2017 and sentenced to two years in jail—which she expected—because she took to the streets in her home town with her veil on the end of a stick. She was claiming her right to be seen, to have her voice heard, to fight for human rights in her nation.

Her lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has fought for many of the women involved in this particular action, is now under arrest herself, and we also heard about that from Senator Singh earlier. This is not the first time. She is an activist human rights lawyer and a woman in Iran, so she understands the dangers that she is fighting. She described the ongoing arrests of Iranian women for violating the country's compulsory hijab rule as 'a manifestation of violence against women'.

There are so many women, and the men who support them, who are taking action at the moment, and we must listen to their cries. We must take the actions we can take in our own community and in our own parliament, as parliamentarians, to bring a focus onto this. We must share with others the courage of people like Shima Babaei, a young civil rights activist who has used social media to spread the word of her actions and to say, strongly, that she is standing up for other women. It is important because there are a range of horrors of human rights abuses in the Iranian community, but we can take part in standing up against it. We have the opportunity; we have the chance to join with other people, people in our own nation, who are working to expose these human rights abuses. We also have the opportunity to encourage our government, through processes like our position on the Commission on Human Rights at the UN, to keep the issue of human rights in Iran on the agenda.

This week in Paris there will be the grand rally for Iranian democracy, where we expect over 100,000 people to come together—community members, members of parliament from across the world—to share in the celebration of the history of Iran and its struggle, as Senator Williams said, to bring back freedoms and rights to a community that has been suffering for so long. I send the people who are attending that rally my best wishes. I believe that we have the opportunity to share in their struggle by keeping the focus on the people who have been suffering so greatly. We need to talk about the issues in forums like this. We need to name the people who are imprisoned in Iran so they're no longer faceless or nameless. We need to keep their names and their courage before us and be part of the wider movement looking at the incredible need for human rights around the world, not just in our own area. We're part of a global community. As we say in the Sustainable Development Goals movement: we have an obligation to leave no-one behind.

Senate adjourned at 19:56